Re: MaintainerDatabase Copyright
>>"Jim" == Jim Pick <email@example.com> writes:
Jim> Anyways -- the point I really wanted to make was that you could
Jim> probably get away with a simple question like "Do you agree to
Jim> let the Debian project use this information?" rather than writing
Jim> a license. A license is a complicated, convulated legal document
Jim> which everybody is going want to debate. Particularily if it
Jim> fails to fall under our much-debated definition of "free".
But we didn't. People came forth and objected to indiscrminate
use of the data, in fact, they objected to the data being put under
the GPL. So the speculation is alreay pointless; we did not get away
with a simple question like that.
The question is how we deal with this? I think we can't allow
a pure GPL anyway since some people want the data restricted, and the
GPL insists everything be made public. Some people insist on the data
not published with a licence that allows it to be mutable.
What do you want to do about that?
No gnus is good gnus.
Manoj Srivastava <url:mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
Mobile, Alabama USA <url:http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .