Re: Copyright from the lcs-projekt!? [dwarf@polaris.net: Re: First cut at testing and validation]
On Sat, Aug 15, 1998 at 02:52:30AM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> > 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''.
We can't. We have to ship the copyright with the software!
People, let's not overact. The GPL is already as free as we need it to be.
Please read my post on debian-policy (topic: Why the GPL is free)
> 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.
This is true. Although, taking from the legal text is fine. Just don't make
it pretend to be the GPL.
> 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.
I would hope that we use a different copyright than the GPL for data
entities. At least it is the goal of the Open Content project to provide a
GPL like license for data entities (too much terms in the GPL are software
specific, and don't scale well when applied to data like text).
However, as an interim solution, every copyright is fine.
Thank you,
Marcus
--
"Rhubarb is no Egyptian god." Debian GNU/Linux finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann http://www.debian.org master.debian.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
Reply to: