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

Re: Anti-TPM clauses

Ben Finney wrote:
Olive <olive001@tele2allin.be> writes:

Francesco Poli wrote:
Firstoff, please note that *packages* are accepted in main or
otherwise rejected.  *Packages*, not *licenses*.
OK, but packages are accepted according to their license; when I say
that Debian accept a license I mean that it accept packages under
this license. This seems clear, is it not?

It's not, because it gives the incorrect implication that *all* works
under that license are acceptable for Debian by definition.

We must consider *all* aspects that may restrict the freedom of a
recipient of a work, of which the set of license terms is the most
significant but not always the only factor.

OK that's true; but in this case we spoke well about a license. But in general I agree with you on this point.

I must confess you that the answer having me really angry might not
be your. I was particularly angry by reading a message like this:


where he seems to say that a consensus of Debian legal might have
more value that the one expressed by the people officially entitled
to do so.

There was no value judgement in that message. I'm sorry you found one
where it wasn't written. Here it is again:

Ben Finney wrote:
Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.IT> writes:

debian2007@macfreek.nl wrote:
There seem to be consensus that as long as there is no vote on
[CC by-sa 3.0], it's probably non-free, and best not put it in
main. Correct?

Wrong. CC-BY-SA 3.0 is a free license and many works licensed this
way are in main.

Note that the latter does not necessarily imply the former. Many
packages have been in main against the advice of a consensus view on
debian-legal that the package is non-free.

The original poster *directly asked* about the consensus view. My
response was a clarification about consensus of debian-legal, since
that was the original question.

I have not understood the question this way. I have understood the question about a consensus on the Debian community, not on debian legal and on that basis there is no consensus (since at least the ftp masters do not agree).

This list must speak about Debian; I do not agree about this list becoming recluse and speaking only about itself. It was in this sense that I have said in another message that if it continues; the answers stated on this list might well be disregarded; because if debian legal speak only about itself; it would have nothing to do with debian. And it is precisely Debian that matters

That really let think that debian-legal would be entitled to decide
what is free according to Debian.

Not at all. This list is a Debian resource to allow discussion of
DFSG-freeness of works, so that decisions can hopefully be informed by
more than one opinion. It has no special power in that regard.

In this sense; people including are obviously free to bring their opinions. But as I have said; I think there is no sense of speaking about some Freeness or even DFSG-freeness in absolute. Even before a real tribunal rules are often read according to their spirit and not too literally (it is the case in Europe). Moreover the DFSG are somewhat vague and do not try to forecast all cases (The GPL and especially the GPLv3 is written more in this spirit; but even in this case there is disagreement on some points; principally what constitute a derived work; and it is not at all clear that it will be interpreted exactly the same by different courts. So even for a software to be GPL might not be absolute). The final decision has to be taken by the Debian community and has yet to be decided. So what make sense is what Debian considers free.

In the message I quote ( http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/09/msg00119.html ); you spoke about packages being non-free having being accepted and you justifies the fact that they were non free by a consensus in debian legal. I you really means that a consensus on Debian legal is enough to declare a package non-free; I will continue to vehemently object. We speak here of Debian; not just debian legal.


Reply to: