[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#56166: base-files: copyright in motd is outdated (fwd)

On Tue, Jan 25, 2000 at 08:32:00PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> If we DO need a license for the distribution, something short and to
> the point (do whatever the hell you want with it, but don't sue us)
> seems reasonable enough; I like Branden's license for the X packages
> personally.

Er, this is just the MIT license, with the names changed to protect the
guilty.  I can't claim credit for it.

> ===
> Copyright 1996-2000 Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
> ===
> In essence: Don't sue us, don't use SPI's name as an endorsement, but
> otherwise go forth and multiply.

Unfortunately, I think such a boilerplate on the distribution as a whole
might seriously delude people.  They might think that those terms apply to
the GPL'ed software within.  I'd hate for us to contribute to GPL
violations by accident.

I think the boilerplate aggregate license should the GPL.  It will be
correct in a large number of cases, and if people abide strictly by its
terms, there is only a very small minority of packages whose license they
could accidentally violate.

But I do think that yes, we SHOULD apply an aggregation copyright and
license terms.

G. Branden Robinson            |
Debian GNU/Linux               |    If God had intended for man to go about
branden@ecn.purdue.edu         |    naked, we would have been born that way.
roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgp1Xdrm7YHr3.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: