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

Re: Bug#192748: Debian-legal summary of the OPL

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> [I readded the bug report to CC despite of the contradicting MFT,
> since it doesn't make sense to exclude it]

Yeah, I didn't include it because I didn't know what the clone's bug
number was going to be... it's included and set appropriately now.
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 08:13:14PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> > debian-legal has recently reconsidered the OPL and has determined that
> > it is a license that is not free.[1]
> > 
> > This means that the debian webpages should have their license changed,
> > assuming this is possible and that those who hold copyrights agree.
> Hmm, I'm a bit uncertain about the copyright of the webpages:
>  From the footer of the webpages I would conclude that SPI holds the
>  copyright on all content of the Debian webpages, is this right?

One would assume so, but I'm really not sure, considering that most of
the bits of code don't have any copyright statements at all.

>  Is this legally safe without explicit statements from the authors of
>  that content?

Probably not, actually.

>  The scripts that generate the webpages have different copyrights
>  and licences but I think this is ok, isn't it? (The ones that carry
>  copyright notices with them seem to be GPL licenced, so they aren't
>  affected by this bug.

Yeah, so long as they are DFSG free licenses (GPL being one of those)
it shouldn't be a big deal.

> If my conclusion above are right, I think the SPI board has to
> handle that bug...

I think we'll need the SPI board to make some sort of a determination,
and it probably would be a good idea for the www.debian.org team to
make some sort of copyright assignment to SPI, probably along the
lines of what the FSF does. [I would imagine that the copyright could
be granted to SPI, and then the SPI could license back the work to the
author with generous terms (sublicense under different terms, modify,
distribute, etc.) so that the original author could do just about
anything that they want to do with the work besides sue for copyright
infringement. [The SPI would have to take on that task...]

Don Armstrong

[Panama, 1989. The U.S. government called it "Operation Just Cause".]
I think they misspelled this. Shouldn't it be "Operation Just 'Cause"?
 -- TekPolitik http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=59669&cid=5664907


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: