Russell Nelson wrote:
Thomas Bushnell, BSG writes: > Debian's policy with ambiguous licenses is to refuse to distribute, > and to request the publishers to make the license clearer. Then let's tell Real that, if this is the consensus of the group rather than just one person talking.
Yeah, let's tell Real that! :) All I gotta say is "God bless Google", because otherwise I would have had no idea that such a personally relevant topic was being so hotly debated. As mentioned by Dave Turner, the talks between RealNetworks and the Free Software Foundation are ongoing. Digging back through this thread hasbeen useful input for us. I need to get around to setting up another call to discuss.
Thanks Russ for coming to our defense. I agree with Russ that what we're being asked to change is not entirely clear. I think I understand the "Chinese dissident" example, and it's actually illuminating, but as Russ points out, not at all captured in the DFSG. If it's important to the Debian community, it should probably be captured there.
We're currently evaluating our license with this thread in mind, but does anybody have new suggested wording?
Rob Lanphier Helix Community Coordinator https://www.helixcommunity.org