[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.

Exactly.
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
non-free.
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.


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt
 New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgpYuvck8TQrm.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: