Re: Artwork in sourceforge.net pages
En/na Weakish Jiang ha escrit:
>> "Content located on any SourceForge.net-hosted subdomain which is
>> subject to the sole editorial control of the owner or licensee of such
>> subdomain, shall be subject to the OSI-approved license applicable to
>> such Source Code, or to such other licensing arrangements that may be
>> approved by OSTG as applicable to such Content."
> First, OSI-approved licenses may not be considered as conforming to the
> DFSG. And of course, under a OSI-approved license doesn't mean
> conforming to GPL.
That's right, but in this case "OSI-approved license applicable to such
Source Code" means GPL, AFAIU.
> Second, it seems that "such other licensing arrangements that may be
> approved by OSTG as applicable to such Content." applies to artwork in
> web pages.
They may apply but aren't mandatory. There's the "subject to the
OSI-approved license" choice. The problem is there isn't any sign of
using these other arrangements.
> Again, a license approved by OSTG may not OSI-approved
> licenses may not be considered as conforming to the DFSG.
> The sourceforge's terms deals with the relationship between sourceforge
> and software/content owner, rather than the relationship between you and
> software/content owner. It has nothing to do with your rights. It is
> reasonable to think that the content is conform to sourceforge's terms'
> requirements, but sourceforge's terms can't and actually doesn't grant
Of course, they aren't sufficient to grant it. But the fact that only
arragements apparently not made... overall they give me the impression
that the artwork may be free enough.
Then, if I have sort of evidence upstream received my message and they
don't answer for whatever reason, could I use that paragraph as a
justification for an interim solution while waiting any
confirmation/rejection? More important, could the Debian community
accept this interim solution?