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

Re: Why LGPLv3/CC-by-sa-v3.0 for the logo?

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 11:31:55PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> There are two issues with your previous reply:
>  * it was not clear that your request for more info also included
> questions about the particular copyright licenses to be chosen

YMMV, I guess.

>  * the reply itself was only sent to debian-project (something that you
> have just done again...), despite my explicit request to be Cced on
> replies

I'm not sure it is correct to call this "issue". You asked the
*courtesy* of Cc:-ing you on replies. I generally try to be courteous,
but it's easy to forget about these things when they are not
automated. I'm sorry, but I forgot (again) to Cc you. I humbly suggest
that you use headers like Mail-{Followup,Reply}-To in the future. That
would decrease the chances that someone forget about respecting your Cc
courtesy requests.

> But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a copyleft
> *copyright* license is indeed the right choice to make.  Even assuming
> this, I am deeply disappointed by the GPLv2-incompatible license
> choice.
> I repeat: I strongly recommend to *at least* choose the GNU LGPL v2.1
> "or later"!

Your disappointment was clear to me, and I'm sorry about it. But in
choices that have alternatives, it is often the case that someone will
be disappointed by each of the possible choices. In this specific case,
I've *considered* your comments and investigated each of them further.
But in the end I had to make a decision regarding a specific asset of
the Debian project, and did that. I've weighted the drawbacks that you
mentioned (modulo the ones I completely disagree with --- like your
allegation in this mail about the "broken copyleft mechanism" in GPLv3)
and considered them not severe enough to choose otherwise.

> I am really disappointed by this decision and I hope you will
> reconsider.

I'm sorry about your disappointment, but I'm not inclined to reconsider.
In fact, the decision has now been implemented as a SPI board resolution
last week:

I haven't yet done a proper announcement, simply because I yet have to
prepare the patch to update the logo license page on the Debian website.

If you feel strongly about this (as you clearly do), I remind you that
the right path to escalate is not starting a thread against the decision
on -project and/or -legal, but rather propose to override the decision
via the appropriate Debian mechanisms.

Stefano Zacchiroli  . . . . . . .  zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: