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

Re: New package algol68toc: terms of the copyright.

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:51 AM, Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 09:44:17AM -0400, Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 01:59:13PM +0100, Sian Mountbatten wrote:
>> > Dear List
>> >
>> > Please find attached a copy of the copyright in all the source files
>> > of the algol68toc compiler.
>> > You will note that the licence accords with the DFSG. I am of the
>> > opinion that the compiler
>> > package could go into the main Debian distribution.
>> >
>> > Please confirm.
>> Sadly, I don't think we can :)
>> INAL, so someone feel free to call me wrong. Comments inline.
> I'll call me wrong:
> 09:31 < Ganneff> svuorela: name the/a organisation, not your name. "org:
>                  freedom fighters, inc". done. :)
> 09:31 < Ganneff> it doesnt want YOUR name, it wants A name for changes.
>                  i dont see a problem in that. just make it consistent
> Comments retracted.

I'd not be so quick to retract those comments!  I agree it fails the
dissident test.  One is not able to contribute anonymously.  You must
identify the organization you are a part of (and what is an
"organization," anyway?).  And what do you do if you're not part of an
organization?  Are you required to identify yourself?

If one must identify themselves a part of "freedom fighters, inc."
they open themselves to their changes being traced back to them along
with a flag on them saying, "I'm a freedom fighter."  If they are not
part of an organization, but other  "freedom fighter" organizations
are a part of the project, they become tied to those (perhaps, in the
eyes of the government) through their explicit association with the

I think this clause in the license absolutely fails the dissident test
because there is no way for someone to contribute anonymously, and, on
the face of it, no way to contribute without being a member of an
organization, a term the license fails to define.


Reply to: