Re: Copyright from the lcs-projekt!? [dwarf@polaris.net: Re: First cut at testing and validation]

[Philip Hands <phil@hands.com>]

> Hi,
> >>"Michael" == Michael Bramer <michael@weh.rwth-aachen.de> writes:
> 
>  Michael> It is not acceptable, that a official announce debian-redhat
>  Michael> projekt produce non-free software!
> 
> 	Sheer Hyprocrisy. It si OK to have the DFSG which is non-free
>  (no license to redistribute that I can see); it is OK to have most of
>  our software depend on a license that itself is non-free (taken a
>  look at the GPL lately?),  but it is not OK for the LCS? How do you
>  justify that? We follow the FSSTND, which is also non-free. Explain
>  that one.

We can put the GPL in ``verbatim''.

I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing to do, and I certainly
don't think RMS should be blamed for being ``hypocritical'', because I seem
to remember that licences must be unchangeable for legal reasons, and even if
that were not so, applying the GPL to itself would probably just give lawyers
a headache, and so make it less enforcible.

At present the DFSG goes into verbatim too, although it should probably have a 
copyright (especially since its been copied and modified, by being renamed the 
Open Source Guidelines, or some such)

I'd put the DFSG under the GPL, thus:  

  This document is placed under the GPL.

  Please note that in the case of this document, we expect you to interpret 
  section 2) subsection a) of the GPL to mean that you should make it 
  abundantly clear that your version of the document is no longer the original
  by, for example, removing all references to ``Debian'' if you make any
  changes.

  The only exception to this being, if you are maintaining the document on
  behalf of Debian, having been officially sanctioned to do so under the
  terms of the Debian constitution.

That probably goes for most of the content of the Web site too.

Cheers, Phil.