Re: Fwd: reiser4 non-free?
Carl-Daniel Hailfinger <c-d.hailfinger.kernel.2004@gmx.net> writes:
> Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>> Exactly: we offer no alternative. This is not a disagreement about
>> which method of ensuring attribution is correct and acceptable, but a
>> disagreement about whether or not it is appropriate to force
>> attribution according to some particular standard.
>>
>> It is entirely within your rights as copyright holder to push
>> whatever social agenda you wish with your software license -- but
>> debian-legal's position is that that will make the license non-free.
>> If you wish to require that it not be used in nuclear facilities,
>> fine: non-free. If you require that people who use the software
>> spend a moment to think about the plight of the homeless, fine:
>> non-free. Just as, when you require attribution in a particular
>> format and with a particular text, that's fine, but non-free.
>
> Did you say this as an official debian spokesperson?
Certainly not. On the other hand, official debian spokespersons are
rather uncommon beasts, and generally unnecessary. This is, however, my
perception (based on my years participating on the list) of the
consensus on debian-legal, and I'd be quite surprised if folks on d-l
disagreed.
Maybe you could explain what you would want an official statement for?
Most likely, whatever it is, we can find a way to achieve it. Like many
groups, especially in the free software world, Debian has its own
structures and ways of getting things done.
--
Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Reply to: