Re: MaintainerDatabase Copyright
> joost> 26 August, we discussed on debian-devel (see for references
> joost> into the debian-devel archive footnote  below), the
> joost> Maintainers database. Part of this discussion was about the
> joost> copyright of the database.
> joost> Just as with ordinary software, people are tempted to make
> joost> their own licence for the (in their eyes) "new" catogory of a
> joost> maintainer database. Initially, distribution was limited. Then
> joost> some discussion on debian-devel followed , and it was
> joost> decided to make it GPL. Then two people got together, and
> joost> decided to change it again, to the "current" licence[For
> joost> text, see footnote 3]:
> Two people, out of the blue? How about, the collators of this
> data, in consultation with the policy manager and the founder of
I'm going by your email here. All you mention was that you
and another maintainer (not mentioning any names) descide to
do so. I have not taken part in this discussion, so if you
say to me that there were two people, then that's what I
> It was pointed out to us that the GPL may not be quite
> appropriate for a dataset like this one, because the GPL explicitly
> allows for modifications of the data. In this case, that part of the
> GPL made people uneasy, and I caould see no reason to have the data
> set being mutable.
I think I've given quite a few reasonable arguments in my email,
that you chose to not to quote.
> joost> - You're not allowed to make money selling the list
> I think I dislike spammers.
Look at the Packages file. It's got every Maintainer's email in
it. I'm allowed to sell the Packages file.
> joost> This change already has taken effect, and all new data
> joost> collected for the database is with this licence. Without
> joost> discussion on any list.
> Hmm, This is a definite first; I have never seen any copyright
> decided by the group before.
Please, read these references, included in my first post:
ref> My post, where I prefer GPL:
ref> Andreas mentions he doesn't like to give his email adress out:
ref> Jim Pick mentions Andreas's email is already in the Packages file:
ref> Manoj: "The data shall be made available under the GPL":
In the end, it was you who decided to have GPL copyright.
With the agreement of me, and implied agreement the others who
contributed to the thread.
> I wish that people had sought to help me modify the licence
> rather than getting confrontational.
I find it hard not to be confontrational again:
I wish I could have contributed to working on the licence!
The only reason I didn't, was because I didn't even know
the licence was changing. Whoever changed it, it was completely
without my knowledge, and, as you admitted in private email to
me, without discussion on the debian mailinglist. How could
I have contributed to forming the licence, if I didn't know
anybody was unhappy with GPL?
> The people who caused the initial licence change came to me in
> a non-confrontational manner, and convinced me of the
I do not actualy think my email was confrontational. I just
viewed the fackts as I saw them. I didn't know the group
was any bigger than two maintainers (You and the other one).
Yes you mention Ian Murdoc, but that's not a maintainer.
> inappropriateness of the GPL.
In my email I've spelled out clearly why I want to be able
to modify the data, at least for personal use. Please, answer
why you think I should be unable to make a list of maintainers
that live in the Netherlands, or a list of maintianers + touristic
joost witteveen, firstname.lastname@example.org
#what's this? see http://www.dcs.ex.ac.uk/~aba/rsa/
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .