[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: handling Mozilla with kid gloves [was: GUADEC report]

On 24 Feb 2005 02:50:49 GMT MJ Ray wrote:

> Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:00:32 +0000 Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > In the majority of cases, a license /is/ either free or non-free.
> > [snipped: although there are exceptions...]
> > I agree and must say (as I already did in the past) that we should
> > find a way to keep track of past license analyses.
> Actually, maybe licences are free or non-free, but who cares?

Well-meaning authors that would like to choose a license that makes
their software DFSG-free.
Only few authors are legally competent enough to tell good and poor
license choices apart...

> We
> don't have a free licence definition or debian free licence
> guidelines. It's not a relevant question.

It's part of the (hopefully) relevant question about the Freeness of a
piece of software.
"Is this work a DFSG-free one?"
"First of all, let's see its license; then we will look at other
potential issues..."

> There seem to be an awful lot of exceptions, anyway.
> I agree that we should find a way to keep track of past package
> analyses.

That would be useful, as long as it's clear which license they are under
(it should be noted in the title of the summary itself).
Otherwise past package analyses would be difficult to exploit...

> The "DLS" documents are dressed up as rulings with
> justifications, rather than a chronicle of sightings of that
> licence. Now maybe that's an interesting thing to summarise.
> > [3] the GFDL comes to mind: just think about reviewing again all
> > related threads without having any sort of summary or position
> > statement(fortunately we have some!)
> Here's an interesting point - where summaries are required, they
> have happened outside the "DLS" series. The two most commonly
> referred to (FDL and CC 2.0) are not DLS.

Maybe because they have happened *before* the "DLS" series started (I'm
referring to the GFDL ones; the CC 2.0 summary is a different story).

          Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
  Francesco Poli                             GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpmNqJbhfFUw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: