Re: MaintainerDatabase Copyright
I do think people have their dander up a lot more than necessary on this
issue. I understand why you might have thought that the GPL was the wrong
license and there was the need for a change. The problem is that you bypassed
the consensus-building stage, and thus got people upset. I suggest you go back
to consensus-building immediately. To that end, I will contribute my opinion:
You will notice that FSF does not GPL the GPL. The license on it is:
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
There really are situations where this is warranted. In this case, the
copyright of the document should be held by SPI, and the submitters of
the individual records should assign those records to SPI. In turn, SPI
would contract to:
1. Give the people mentioned in the database the irrevocable right in
perpetuity to order changes to their information as it appears in
our master copy of the database, including complete removal of their
2. In the event of a dispute over the contents of a record, either party
(SPI or the person mentioned in the record) has the right to request
that the record in dispute be removed immediately from the master copy
of the database, and that request must be honored.
3. SPI represents that it will distribute the database from the master
copy when this is practical. However, SPI does not commit to maintain
copies in an up-to-date state. Out-of-date copies may exist for many
reasons, including the decision to not re-master CD images solely to
update information contained in those images, etc.
I think that more license than this would be overkill. Comments?
Can you get your operating system fixed when you need it?
Linux - the supportable operating system. http://www.debian.org/support.html
Bruce Perens K6BP email@example.com NEW PHONE NUMBER: 510-620-3502
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .