Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Sun, Aug 22, 2004 at 09:29:13PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: >>Agreed; I think at a minimum we need either a legally-binding license in >>English, or an English translation vouched for by someone debian-legal >>subscribers are willing to trust, to be able to make any determination >>that a license is DFSG-free. > > But we have a few goals: for us to be able to determine that it's DFSG-free; > for us to be able to determine that Debian and its mirrors can safely > distribute it even if so (eg. license compatibility); and for users to > be able to know and understand what they can do to a given work. I'd > be willing, for example, to trust others to the first, since it doesn't > put me in actual risk; but I'd be much slower to trust others to the > rest, since an error can cause me to violate the license. > > Generally, I'd only personally accept the former (a legally-binding license > in English) before distributing modifications to a program. I want to be > able to read my rights for myself. (I'm not a lawyer, so I might mess up > and read it wrong, but at least it'd be my own fault.) Well, we only need someone fluent in French legalese to verify that the GPL conversion is valid. After that, we _have_ a legally-binding, English, DFSG-free license. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature