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

Re: Bug#251983: libcwd: QPL license is non-free; package should not be in main



<posted & mailed>

Carlo Wood wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 03, 2004 at 10:15:26PM -0400, Walter Landry wrote:
>> As for 6c, I am convinced by the arguments in
>> 
>>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00626.html
>>   http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00626.html
>> 
>> which render its problems moot.  As long as the original author
>> agrees with that interpretation, the only problem left is the choice
>> of venue.
> 
> Assuming the second link was ment to be
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/03/msg00519.html
> 
> then yes, I think that is the correct interpretation.

OK.  Since you confirm that interpretation, then that clause is fine.  :-) 
Hooray!  Perhaps a link to that specification of the interpretation and
your confirmation of it should be put somewhere.  (In the package copyright
file?  On the debian-legal page?)

<snip>
> If this is agreed upon by everyone - then it makes sense to talk
> about the choice of venue versus choise of law thing.
> Provided that libcwd WILL be included in Debian, I am willing to
> change the wording of the last sentence into one that only states
> a choice of law, not venue.  But then it must be very clear that
> that is enough for making the license pass DFSG as such a change
> would be irrevocable.

Well, we went over it very carefully, and those two were the only problem
issues we saw.  I would be willing to say that that was enough, though I
obviously can't speak for everyone, let alone future generations of
debian-legal.

-- 
There are none so blind as those who will not see.



Reply to: