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

Re: DFSG vs Pine's legal notices: where exactly is the gotcha?



On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 01:54:13PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> I seriously believe that Debian should follow pine license strictly
> and not accept any special permission "only for Debian".
> 
> This is written in the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and I believe
> it's a guideline we should follow for non-free software as well.
> 
> Debian is about free software, non-free software should not be treated
> *more* favourably than free software in the Debian archives.
> 
> Consider this as a matter of principles, if you like. I think Debian
> should only distribute whatever everybody would be allowed to
> distribute by just reading the license.

Also consider that special permission to distribute from non-free could,
in general, be revoked at any time by the copyright holder.  If the
package is unmaintained we could go for months in violation of the
license, which might make the copyright holder angry and tempt
him/her/it to sue us for copyright infringement.

Due to that, I think it is good policy for us to do as you suggest,
quite apart from the philosophical issues.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    Yeah, that's what Jesus would do.
branden@debian.org                 |    Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpBhFDRycfJD.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: