On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 00:32:44 +0000 Andrew Saunders wrote: > On 3/5/07, Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote: > > > As far as CC-v3.0 are concerned, my personal opinion should be clear > > from the message[2] that you yourself cite: I don't think that any > > CC-v3.0 license meets the DFSG. Other people disagree with me, > > though. > > > > You didn't find any "final answer" because the thread didn't reach a > > clear consensus (and possibily is not even over, just in pause for a > > while...). > > The "final answer" on this sort of issue isn't arrived at through > discussion on -legal at all. To quote an ftp-master: > > "the way Debian makes the actual call on whether a license > is suitable for distribution [...] isn't based on who shouts the > loudest on a mailing list, it's on the views of the archive > maintainers." [1] You cut an important part: Anthony Towns was speaking about distributability (suitability for the non-free archive), not about DFSG-compliance (suitability for the main archive). The full quote is: | the way Debian makes the actual call on whether a license | is suitable for distribution in non-free isn't based on who shouts the | loudest on a mailing list, it's on the views of the archive | maintainers. He may hold a similar opinion about DFSG-compliance, but he was not talking about it in the particular message you quoted. Indeed debian-legal is a sort of advisory committee, and the final decision is up to the ftp-masters, but when an opinion is asked to debian-legal (this is how this thread started), well, an opinion from debian-legal is provided. This should not be surprising: if Mathieu wanted to get the ftp-masters' opinion, he could have asked them... > > 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. The two messages/essays you cite were written at the time of the first CC-v3.0 public draft: hence they talk about drafts, rather than about the final texts. Moreover there was the anti-DRM issue, which is still there, and Evan Prodromou acknowledged in the essay that the conclusion was yet to be drawn. > The > Workgroup's conclusion appears to hinge on whether one chooses to > interpret the GFDL GR [4] as a precedent rather than an exemption, but > I suspect that in the absence of another GR, it's the ftp-masters > that'll be getting to choose. The essay[3] you cite states: | Whether this is an exception, or applicable to all licenses, is a | subject to some debate for Debian members. "Debian members" != "ftp-masters" Anyway I don't how the GFDL GR could be interpreted as applicable to all licenses, as it specifically talks about the GFDL and no other license... > > 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, 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? It's possible, but an explanation from the ftp-masters would be appreciated: we, debian-legal regulars, spend quite some time in reviewing licenses; I would like to know when and why ftp-masters decide to ignore our conclusions... > > As ever, the above is only my personal opinion and I'm perfectly happy > to be proven wrong when presented with appropriate evidence. Feel free > to smash my thought experiment to bits as best as you are able. :-) > > [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/06/msg00129.html > [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/08/msg00015.html > [3] http://evan.prodromou.name/Debian_Creative_Commons_Workgroup_report > [4] http://www.debian.org/vote/2006/vote_001 > [5] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/03/msg00001.html -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html Need to refresh your keyring in a piecewise fashion? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgp7MdXwJ4exE.pgp
Description: PGP signature