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

Re: Free art license, CC and DFSG



Andrew Saunders <syntaxis@gmail.com> wrote: [...]
> In his role as DPL, that same ftp-master (or "archive maintainer", if
> you prefer) has endorsed [2] the Debian Creative Commons Workgroup
> which opined [3] that the CCPL 3.0 is suitable for Debian main. [...]

I think [3]'s the opinion of the Workgroup leader.  The Workgroup's
last opinion was http://people.debian.org/~evan/draftresponse.txt

[...]
> Similarly, while MJ Ray argues [5] that packages under the Open Font
> License making their way into main is proof of incompetence and/or
> oversight on the ftp-masters' part,

Misjudgements of a fairly vague twisty licence from ftp-masters,
maintainers, debian-legal contributors and more.

By the way, the quoted ftp-master/DPL also claims[6] 'The DFSG refers
to copyright licensing' when it clearly doesn't refer to it even once.
So is there the possibility of ftp-master misreading a licence?

[6] - http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/02/msg00027.html

> is it not possible that they
> simply disagree with debian-legal's analysis and decided to let the
> packages in on that basis, just as they did in the case of Sun's Java
> licensing?

Sun's Java is not yet in main and IIRC debian-legal wasn't asked before
that same DPL fast-tracked it into non-free.  The response of some was
'on your heads be it' because it was done by a few clearly-identified
people and it's not part of debian.

Otherwise, good summary.
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct



Reply to: