Re: MaintainerDatabase Copyright
>>"joost" == joost witteveen <email@example.com> writes:
>> c) Some people have expressed a concern about having it published
>> in a form that legally allows modified copies to be distributed.
joost> No-one on this list has expressed that concern. Yes, David
joost> Welton <firstname.lastname@example.org> said that initially, but after
joost> realising that it can be easily solved with PGP signing, he
joost> mailed to this list saying he would even be happy with GPL.
This is early yet. This discussion has flared up here on a
weekend; people may be doing other things (like, there is a life
outside Debian?). Since I am one of the people involved in this
effort, I have to look after all user interests. Even people who do
not monitor this list on weekends.
joost> Could we have information on who those 5 against are? The 4 in
joost> favour are openly available on the mailinglist. I know only one
joost> of those 5 against. I realise that they may not want their
joost> name/email to be revealed on the mailinglist. But if the
joost> discussion about this licence/copyright were to be helt
joost> _Before_ changing it as opposed to after, then at least we
joost> could have discussed it with all of those 5 against.
You are right, I do not feel like putting their names up here
at the moment. Or are you saying I'm making the opposition up?
>> Other people have no objection to having it distributed under a
>> licence that allows the data to be mutable.
>> Firstly, I do not believe the GPL is valid for non-programs.
joost> Dale seems to disagree with you.
*Shrug*. Two non-lawyers with different views. Can we get a
more authoritative opinion?
GPL> 0. This License applies to any program or other work which
GPL> contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be
GPL> distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The
GPL> "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work
GPL> based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative
GPL> work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the
GPL> Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications
GPL> and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter,
GPL> translation is included without limitation in the term
GPL> "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".
This, under the letter of the law, seems to cover non-programs
as well. I guess I am wondering on whether it really applies to
non-programs, as it seems to have been designed for a program.
>> Finally, I have seen nothing that addresses concerns people have
>> under point c, apart from opinions that the the people offering the
>> opinion did not share the concern. This is not a solution.
joost> Some of the "c" people seem to feel more happy if the database
joost> is PGP signed by the maintainer. If we were to know who those 4
joost> against (we know one: Manoj) people are, we could ask them how
joost> they feel about that.
Actually, you are wrong about that; my interest is more for
the users than for myself; I probably would not mind the GPL except
for a matter of principle; I hate being called names even in private
Also, this is not really a popularity contest; we have to
address the issue of the people who wish the information to
remain more private; so far that is about 19 out of 107 responses
recieved. How does that jibe with the GPL insisting the raw data be
made available? (I also know 3 people who would have opted for a more
privacy if they knew it was going to be the GPL that was being used,
making that 22 out of 107)
I'll wait and see if there are any responses to this over the
next week or so.
"If Ricky Schroder and Gary Coleman had a fight on television with
pool cues, who would win? Ricky Schroder Gary Coleman The television
viewing public" David Letterman
Manoj Srivastava <url:mailto:email@example.com>
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 firstname.lastname@example.org .