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

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



On 25 Feb 2005 11:17:19 GMT MJ Ray wrote:

> Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
> > Well-meaning authors that would like to choose a license that makes
> > their software DFSG-free. [...]
> 
> Well-meaning authors can go look at similar packages already
> in main and check the copyright file.

Imitating other licensors and repeating the same poor choices again and
again?
Not all packages in main are under a license I would recommend (think
about DFSG-free but still annoying licenses, such as the 4-clause BSD,
strange "ad hoc" licenses, QPL + additional permissions that make it
DFSG-compliant, and so on...).

I'm not quite sure it would be a good way to enhance the current Free
software situation.
IMHO, license proliferation should be limited as far as possible, not
encouraged...

> That would be much better
> advice, IMO. Actually, the copyright files are all linked from
> packages.debian.org now.
> 
> If anyone thinks it's a good idea to generate indexes from
> copyright files, I'm happy to help, but I don't have a local
> debian mirror to play with.

Could you elaborate?
What do you mean by indexes in this context?
Something like database indexes?

> 
> > MJ Ray wrote:
> > > 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).
> 
> CC 2.0 was definitely not before DLS. I'll take your word on the
> FDL/DLS timing. The 1997 DLS date shown on the web is clearly fake.

Wait a second: 1997 ???    8-|
I thought DLS meant "Debian Legal Summary", but now I'm confused...  :p

IIRC, the debian legal summary practice was first proposed and started
in 2003 and, again IIRC, *after* the first public position statements
about the GFDL appeared on the web...

But of course, I may well be wrong: I was following debian-legal on its
web archives only, at that time (reading all the 2003 GFDL-related
threads via web was a real 'adventure'!).
If some long-time debian-legal contributor recalls any better, he/she is
welcome to correct me!  :)


-- 
          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: pgpzvxj7Tb3K0.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: