On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 00:23:40 +0100 MJ Ray wrote: > Interesting reply, TNX > but it seems to have missed my main point. Ouch, I apologize for this... ;p > > On 2004-06-26 18:30:40 +0100 Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> > wrote: > > > So, IIUC, you propose that summaries should be split into two > > `variants' > > This part is correct. > > > in your opinion, every license should be summarized by one > > document intended for the license authors (who may be willing to > > improve their license) /and/ by another document intended for > > developers > > (people who choose licenses for their software) and users (people > > who choose software taking into account licensing issues). > > No, I feel that if a licence author/user asks the list, the summariser > writes a reply explaining any notable features of the licence in > question; while if a packager asks the list, the summariser writes a > reply explaining why a particular consensus was reached about the > package and that can be added to the web page, listing the licence > used and the consensus. Ah, that is what you meant! The summariser must implement a comand-line switch (--license or --package) and generate a different type of output depending on how he/she was invoked. ;-) HHOJ! :) Ok, seriously: I didn't understand what you actually propose. Now, it's clear (even to me! ;-) and it sounds like a good proposal, if summarisers can (and are willing to) get used to such a `double system'... [...] > > It's not about becoming FSF++ or OSI mark 2. > > But, hey!, what can you do when you realize you don't quite agree > > with FSF's or OSI's criteria and you feel that Debian's criteria are > > the ones > > you agree best with? > > Go set up your own licence court system using those criteria. Well, those criteria are well known and understood by debian-legal regulars. I think that the only feasible way would be to exploit debian-legal expertise. Could you explain what do you feel would be wrong with a list of licenses? Do you think it would be misunderstood? > > [...] > > But it should publish some sort of vademecum, even though it must be > > Vademecum is not a word dict or I know. It looks like a Roman place > name. I'm sorry: I'm not a native English speaker. I just took a Latin word that is used in Italian in the (apparently wrong) belief that it was used in English, too... :p Actually, searching for that word in English dictionaries returns nothing in most cases. Though, *some* dictionaries do include it. An online example from: http://wordreference.com/definition/vade+mecum.htm vade mecum ['va:di'meikum] noun a handbook or other aid carried on the person for immediate use when needed [ETYMOLOGY: 17th Century: from Latin, literally: go with me] What I meant was a sort of guide or reference that could help the reader to find his/her way in the difficult world of licensing... [...] > Surely one could generate some lists of licences for the web site from > existing packages, then reference debian-legal discussions? This would probably do the job, at least partially. > Or look at > /usr/share/common-licenses on any Debian system for some obvious > candidates. Well, these are the very minimum... ;-) -- | GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | You're compiling a program Francesco | Key fingerprint = | and, all of a sudden, boom! Poli | C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | -- from APT HOWTO, | 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | version 1.8.0
Attachment:
pgpH3pawgRbne.pgp
Description: PGP signature