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

Re: Debian official web site is still non-free

On Sun, 8 Jan 2012 23:17:02 +0100 Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 08, 2012 at 10:40:35PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > I think that this is exactly what people opposing to copyright
> > assignment want to avoid: giving permission to re-license under yet
> > unknown terms.
> I don't think you should make absolute statements for *all* the people
> opposing copyright assignments, while being yourself only one of them.

I didn't intend to make *absolute* statements.
I acknowledge that I should have written "what *some* people opposing",
but unfortunately that "some" failed to come out of my keyboard...
Sorry about that.

Anyway, I am under the impression that the number of those "some
people" is significant.

> I'm under the *impression* that an important amount of people objecting
> copyright assignments do so to avoid the risk that their contributions
> get re-licensed under terms that go against their moral beliefs about
> software freedom. That is why I won't sign a copyright assignment to a
> for-profit entity.

And, since I have been repeatedly disappointed by non-profit
organizations too, I personally strongly dislike copyright assignment
to *any* entity, not just to for-profit ones.

> I understand that not all DFSG-free licenses are equal in terms of how
> they represent moral beliefs of people (e.g. I'm myself more of a
> copyleft kind of guy than a *BSD kind of guy). But it is the largest
> horizon of software freedom beliefs we should expect from people who
> have contributed to the *Debian* website.

As I said, some people may dislike giving blanket permission to
re-license under yet unknown terms, since they may think that some
licenses officially accepted by the Debian Project are in fact
You know at least some examples, hence there's no need to explicitly
list them...  

> Strategically, it seems to me
> that either we stick to that set of licenses, or we have to pick a
> single license upfront.

As I said, I think a single license (or, anyway, a very small number of
possible licenses, from which the contributor may choose one) should be
picked upfront.

> > Moreover, "any DFSG-free license" is quite vague.
> > Who decides which licenses are DFSG-free and which are not?
> The Debian project has an official position on which licenses are
> DFSG-free and which are not. I believe you know that very well.

Yes, and not everybody agrees with that official position, as you know.

> We will all appreciate if you could avoid hijacking this discussion to
> push agendas that object the current stance of the Debian project on
> which licenses are DFSG-free and which are not. Those discussions do not
> belong to this (already crowded) bug log.

I agree, and that is exactly the reason why I avoided making any
specific example: I didn't want to drive the discussion far away from
the important point we are talking about.

 New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgpkfO4uIQnYk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: