Re: DRAFT: debian-legal summary of the QPL
On 2004-07-13 21:39:31 +0100 Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it>
wrote:
I agree. Focussing on packages only would require too many analyses,
indeed.
Are you claiming that "this package fails to follow for the same
reasons as that one" requires more analyses than analysing the licence
and then "this package fails to follow because it is only under
licence L"? I remind you, we still should check the packages if asked.
In fact, I think if there are n packages under some combination of
that licence, we do at most n analyses if we mainly analyse packages
and n+1 if we analyse the licence first. Marginal, but possibly still
significant, for some.
We must also collect some sort of license database, so as we can say
"this package is solely under the L license, hence it cannot be
DFSG-free for sure".
What does this do that a database of summaries indexed by licence
wouldn't?
[...] would be a waste of time if we had to review the
same licenses again and again or to dig in the archives to recall if
some old package in a similar situation was judged free or not...
This is where we are at the moment. I thought the summaries were an
attempt to reduce the digging, but they seem to have drifted.
--
MJR/slef My Opinion Only and not of any group I know
http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ for creative copyleft computing
"Matthew Garrett is quite the good sort of fellow, despite what
my liver is sure to say about him in [...] 40 years" -- branden
Reply to: