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

Re: ldp-es_20002103-7_i386.changes REJECTED

On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 03:31:50PM +0100, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña wrote:
> 	The facts are: 
> - ldp-es has been in the archive for some time (2 years) [2]

Debian has no grandfather clause.  If ldp-es has DFSG-non-free components
in it, they must be removed or the entire package dropped or moved to
non-free (depending on what permissions are granted by the licensing on

> Several legal issues here:
> 1.- Only GULP has an authorisation which can be trusted (digitally signed)
> regarding translation. There is no need of one for LPG however.

Debian does not generally require copyright licenses to be digitially
signed for us to recongize their legitimacy.  I expect we would only
require one if there were known problems with deliberately fraudulent
copyright notices and or licenses being promulgated in the Free Software
community.  I know of no such thing ever happening.  (One reason may be
that the laws of most countries regard doing so as a criminal offense;
in the U.S. you can be fined up to $2,500 for doing so.)

> 2.- GULP has a non-DFSG license (this I failed to see).

So you agree that there is a problem?

> Questions:
> . Are we going to ask for 1)? (this was not the reason why it was
> rejected but I want to bring it up on -legal)

In my opinion such a requirement is not necessary, and to my knowledge
it would be unprecedented in the Debian Project.

> . If the GULP translators changed the license to be DFSG-free, would the
> translation be allowed into main? (notice that the package was REJECTED due
> to the *original* document not being DFSG-free, it said nothing on the
> translation).

Both the original GULP and the translation need to be DFSG-free.

If the original GULP is DFSG-free, anyone can produce a translation in
any language.  If the licensing on the existing Spanish translation of
GULP is non-DFSG-free and cannot be changed, a new Spanish translation
could be made from scratch.  As long as the existing Spanish translation
were not plagaiarized, there should be no problem.

If the original GULP is not DSFG-free, I cannot see any way that the
document or any translation of it could possibly be allowed in main.
The non-freeness of the original document would prevent any translation
from being DFSG-free, as I understand U.S. copyright law.

G. Branden Robinson                |    People are equally horrified at
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    hearing the Christian religion
branden@debian.org                 |    doubted, and at seeing it
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |    practiced.         -- Samuel Butler

Attachment: pgpyqSI90cvQs.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: