Re: Unlicensed data is *not distributable*
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Unlicensed data is *not distributable*
- From: Nathanael Nerode <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 00:41:39 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] email@example.com>
- References: <20040426045609.GA2579@azure.humbug.org.au> <20040426090712.GA4214@seehuhn.de> <20040426093502.GC7998@saruman.uio.no> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20040426105042.GA6293@saruman.uio.no> <email@example.com> <20040426145150.GE7653@saruman.uio.no> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20040427223918.GF19101@alcor.net> <email@example.com> <20040430160142.GQ19139@alcor.net>
Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 02:02:55AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
>> Please file a bug against any package containing data which is not
>> clearly public domain and does not have a valid license; it is not
>> I know that's horrible, but that's the law. :-P This is the change from
>> a 'conditional' to an 'unconditional' copyright regime.
> Even if our packages are perfect license-wise (and they aren't), Debian
> distributes data which is not contained in any package. Searching a
> Debian CD for things which are not .deb, .dsc, .orig.tar.gz, etc. is a
> good start.
There's not actually that much which isn't in packages, is there? Under the
current debian-cd / debian-installer design, pretty much all of it comes
from packages, even the parts that are distributed in different forms.
> I'll grant you the pleasure of examining each of the thousands of files in
> the archive and determining whether it is an "original work of authorship"
> (US) or whatever criteria applies in any other country where Debian is
> distributed (a large number).
There's a reason this duty was distributed to package maintainers.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.