Re: Authority and procedures of debian-legal
Glenn L McGrath <email@example.com> wrote:
> I think if a licence has been accepted as complying with the Open Source
> Definition, then the burden of proof should be on on the people who want
> it excluded from debian. [...]
You think debian should be bound by a buggy derived project's decisions?
For examples of how they differ, the OSI famously claims to have
"no position" on some non-copyright matters and they foolishly
approve copyright licences rather than pieces of software.
Of course, OSI's opinion is worth reading, but I think it is
seldom made public, so they're not really very helpful. All
we usually see is the licensor's lawyer's opinion and *of
course* they are going to claim it's good.
> After listening to what you say, i conclude that wether COV is DFSG free
> is very open to interpretation, i expected a more concrete reason.
Your reasoning process is flawed, then. I'm trying to figure
out the *effect* of these clauses (and now whether a US licensor
specifying them has any effect) and whether that breaks any DFSG.