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

Re: RFS: spim

Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> writes:

> Far better than a separate statement in email, the full license terms
> should simply be updated in a new release of the work. That way, every
> recipient has access to the full terms under which they can act.
> Then the new license terms can be discussed as a whole here on
> ‘debian-legal’ to see what problems remain.

That's poorly phrased. While I did mean to imply that both the above
should happen, there is no necessary sequence to them. That is,
discussing a new set of license terms doesn't require that the release
has yet happened.

> Choosing a well-understood, widely-known free-software license (e.g.
> GNU GPL or Expat terms) would make this much simpler, of course.

Meaning that it would make the discussion much quicker, and simpler to
get the work into Debian.

 \        “All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more |
  `\    robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument |
_o__)                                     than others.” —Douglas Adams |
Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>

Reply to: