On 02/16/2015 11:05 PM, Jody Garnett wrote:
> Would love to have feedback from from Bas to see if the result would get
> past the Debian guidelines.
Your proposed text is certainly an improvement, and more likely to be
acceptable to the Debian FTP masters. I cannot speak on their behalf,
but it seems to address the concerns raised in TinyOWS rejection thread.
IANAL, but I think because how the Copyright FAQ (legalfaq) is referred
to in the Document Notice it's clear that it's an addendum to the
license and should be considered part of the license terms.
Further clarifying the terms for schemas, and also documenting the terms
for CITE tests in the legalfaq is likely sufficient and changes to the
Document & Software Notice terms themselves won't be required.
There has not been a clear statement by the Debian FTP masters about
whether the OGC Software Notice are considered DFSG compliant. But
because of the similarity between the OGC Software Notice and W3C
Software Notice terms chances are good that they are DFSG compliant.
There is a lot of software in the Debian main repository with
W3C-Software licensed works.
We need to get OGC in contact with the Debian FTP masters to get clear
statements from both parties on which terms apply to different works,
and which terms are acceptable with respect to the DFSG.
GPG Key ID: 4096R/6750F10AE88D4AF1
Fingerprint: 8182 DE41 7056 408D 6146 50D1 6750 F10A E88D 4AF1