On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:57:30 +0200 Michael Reichenbach wrote: > Hi! > > The license has been already discussed on the malinglist with opinions > 'DFSG-compatible' and 'not DFSG-compatible'. > > I added it to the wiki. > http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses?action=show#head-4aa606633f3372dc9d5087b69c2f40d06bcd3c2d I think you should link to more recent discussions: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/01/msg00122.html (and the thread that followed) http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/03/msg00130.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/04/msg00032.html > > How to get a final / official verdict about it? I already expressed my personal opinion in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2008/04/msg00032.html but that is, well, my own personal opinion, as said... It's true that nobody else added comments to the new License version 2.4, but what I expressed is still my own personal opinion, and nothing else. Please remember my usual disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. There's no way, AFAIK, to *compel* debian-legal to provide a final / official verdict: unless a consensus is formed, there cannot be a conclusive statement. Moreover, no statement can be final (because some previously unnoticed issue may always be discovered later), or official (since debian-legal is not the decision-making body for Debian, but a sort of advisory board, instead). -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/index.html#nanodocs The nano-document series is here! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpPh52XDIPh0.pgp
Description: PGP signature