Hi everybody, I noticed that bug #384019 has been recently closed. The bug is about Vim's user manual, which is claimed to not comply with the DFSG, because is released under the Open Publication License v1.0[1] (with no options). The bug was closed because an FTP-master (James Troup) stated that the Open Publication License v1.0 without options is fine for main. See the buglog[2] for more details. On the other hand, the Open Publication License v1.0 was reviewed on debian-legal in 2004 and was found to fail to meet the DFSG in various respects, even when no options are exercised[3]. I agree with the debian-legal summary and think that works under this license do not comply with the DFSG. What should be done, in your opinion? Should the bug be reopened? Make no mistake: the Open Publication License is *not* the OpenContent License; these two licenses are different from one another and only share the acronym (OPL), which is therefore ambiguous. Just to be clear: here we are talking about the Open Publication License[1]. [1] http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/ [2] http://bugs.debian.org/384019 [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/03/msg00226.html -- But it is also tradition that times *must* and always do change, my friend. -- from _Coming to America_ ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpRpFDR1bPe8.pgp
Description: PGP signature