Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
MJ Ray said on Mon, Jul 12, 2004 at 09:39:37AM +0100,:
> >I'm afraid that this list will have to do both - analyse licenses in
> >general, and also scturinise specific packages when brought to our
> >notice.
>
> Why?
>
> >In the specific case of licenses which are outright non-free, we need
> >to tell DDs / upstream that packages under a particular license cannot
> >be in the archives.
>
> No, we need to tell DDs/upstream what changes need to be made for a
> package under that licence to be part of debian. "Just saying no" is
> the wrong thing to do.
Hmm. Now, if somebody asks for inclusion of a package under one of
Microsoft's EULAs, I know there are many, but hope you get the general
trend of the terms and conditions - no modifications, no reverse
engieneering, not more than 1 back up at a time, not more than one
copy in the ram, not more than one processor at a time. bla bla
bla....
Can -legal do anything apart from saying a `no'? So we need to look
at the license, is it not?
> Even if a package is under a poor licence, there maybe could still
Even good packages under good licenses like the BSD 2 clause license,
might have to be rejected if they implemented something which is under
an actively enforced patent.
So we need to look at packages too. No?
> exceptions/waivers granted. I'm not sure whether debian has accepted
> such things before.
I'm hardly 18 months on this list.
> their software is not trying to get into debian). The only case
> when it is useful is if this list is asked for comments on a draft,
> usually with some particular software for debian in mind.
Certainly yes.
--
Mahesh T. Pai <<>> http://paivakil.port5.com
താങ്കള്ക്ക് ഇത് വായിക്കാമെങ്കില് താങ്കളുടെ കംപ്യൂട്ടറില് മലയാളം ഉപയോഗിക്കാം
Reply to: