On Tue, 22 May 2007 13:30:24 +0200 Sam Hocevar wrote: > [Cc:ing -legal, but please try to follow-up on only one list] Choosing debian-legal... > > I am having a chat tonight with people from the FSF. You could have announced this earlier, then. :-( > Despite the > inevitable disagreements between Debian and the FSF, I am willing to > cooperate in a constructive manner on as many topic as possible. Here > are the topics we'll be discussing so far: > > 1. The GPLv3: the latest draft did not raise major objections from > -legal I don't think that this is an accurate description of the discussion. See http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/euei2j$qqc$1@sea.gmane.org My comments can be also read here: http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/readsay.html?Query=%20Creator%20=%20'frx'%20%20AND%20'CF.NoteUrl'%20LIKE%20'gplv3-draft-3'%20&Rows=50 > and despite its concerns with the strategies developed in some > sections, Debian does consider it DFSG-free. I do not remember any conclusion in this direction. Draft3 is better than the horrors of the previous drafts, but I am currently still *unsatisfied*. > Debian will however not > push for its adoption, mainly because we still have much software > that is GPLv2-only in the distribution. We will discuss what role > Debian could play in the official launch of the licence. I think it would have been better to discuss how the FSF can fix the remaining issues of the GPLv3-draft3. > > 2. The GFDL: the Debian project does not consider the GFDL a free > software licence as long as the work includes invariant sections. Or front cover texts, or back cover texts, or dedications, or any other unmodifiable parts whose name I cannot remember now. > We > decided (through a GR) that it was otherwise free, mainly because we > expected the FSF to fix the (in our opinion) badly worded DRM clause. I would love to have a telepathy device, but unfortunately I don't. How can you know the actual reasons why people voted the way they did for GR-2006-001? I even asked (on debian-vote) to the last DPL candidates to explain the rationale behind their ballots for GR-2006-001 and only some of them (including you) answered: that makes some 4 or 5 explanations; what about the rest of the Debian Developers who voted or didn't vote for that GR? > It is also not a licence we are willing to actively promote and we > recommend double-licensing GFDL works under an additional free > software licence such as the GPL. I would be really surprised if Debian actively promoted the GFDL... The winning option of GR-2006-001, though being absurd and ill-phrased, stated quite clearly that the GFDL has issues and should be recommended against. > > 3. Nexenta: Despite their incompatibility, Debian accepts both the > CDDL and GPLv2 as valid free software licences When was the CDDL accepted as a license that meets the DFSG?!? I can remember some discussion where no real consensus was reached. See http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20061203173038.4cc1cc59.frx@firenze.linux.it as a summary. > and would welcome any > solution to the distribution of a Debian system based on OpenSolaris. The simplest solution is persuading Sun to relicense (or dual-license) OpenSolaris under a GPLv2-compatible license. Sun publicly claimed to have understood the importance of GPL-compatibility when they started to release their Java implementation under the GPLv2: I don't see a valid reason that could block such a relicensing or dual-licensing. > I have summarised Debian's concerns about the legality of > distributing a system containing a CDDL libc and GPLv2 software such > as Nexenta, and the FSF legal team is working on the issue and is > going to answer us (it will take several weeks, though). > > The timeframe is short but if you have additional topics to suggest > I'll gladly bring them up. Also please correct me if what I have > gathered does not seem to reflect the project's opinion. I don't think that what you gathered reflects debian-legal contributors' opinions. And I am disappointed that you contacted us so late. :-( -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpftg_yLcvgB.pgp
Description: PGP signature