Discussions on legal effects of distributing software in Debian (was: Establishing dialogue between the Debian project and OGC regarding Document & Software Notice terms)
(removing ‘debian-gis’ forum from this discussion)
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> But that does not mean that we (as a project) could not explain
> clearly to people what we would like, and have a conversation with an
> upstream about what we might be willing to accept.
Right. I think that ‘debian-legal’ is an appropriate forum for that
discussion, and I'm glad it was chosen by Sebastiaan when beginning the
thread.
> It is frustrating to me to see that people like the OGC find that
> Debian is not even able to clearly communicate with them. I think this
> is not OGC's fault. OGC are going about this the right way, and we
> (Debian) are failing to respond appropriately.
I agree that it's frustrating to see such queries wait in vain for
authoritative answers.
On the other hand, I think the structure as it exists *does* provide
authoritative answers, in the form of an accepted or rejected package.
What it doesn't provide is a bilateral negotiation process, which is
what I was answering to. I'm glad we agree on that.
> Someone in OGC's position needs to be able to have a conversation with
> someone who can make reasonably authoritative (or at least, usefully
> predictive) statements.
Do they, though? I think a discussion about license conditions, the
Debian Project's stated policies and guidelines, and whatever expertise
we can muster, is sufficient.
Naturally I'd be thrilled if the Debian Project had a nominated *expert*
opinion available in a timely fashion for all people who asked.
In the absence of that, though, I don't think it is *needed*, only
desirable. A discussion among volunteers with access to evidence can
suffice.
> As a result, views expressed on debian-legal - even if there seems to
> be a consensus - are a poor guide to the views of the project as a
> whole.
It's also worth noting that “the views of the project as a whole”, if
they are not guided by a close inspection of the actual license terms
and a willingness to interpret the actual effects of copyright law in
representative jurisdictions around the world, can be a poor guide too.
What is needed ultimately is for copyright law itself to be stripped
right down to what is reasonable and just and free. Failing that, its
effects are usually far more restrictive and risky than most project
members might wish for.
The FTP masters are motivated to get it right, because their actions of
distributing works to Debian recipients are proximately culpable if they
violate copyright. That's where their authority comes from, in my view.
The views of “the project as a whole” must be listened to, but do not
have the same authority.
> One thing which would definitely help is if those people here on
> debian-legal approached their work more as servants of the ftpmasters.
Definitely. My motivation is in part to take some of the cognitive and
cautionary load from the FTP masters, in the interest of giving them an
analysis of a package before the package enters the queues.
A secondary important motivation is to encourage a landscape of works
with licenses more amenable to easy decision-making by the FTP masters.
So rather that address the FTP masters, who presumably already know
where to find these discussions, I address the upstream copyright
holders who are in a position to choose licenses (or encouraging the
people already in contact with those parties to do so).
> I would suggest that (in the absence of a plausible plan for a radical
> improvement to the ftpmaster team's ability to direct these
> discussions[1]) at the very least, Debian contributors to debian-legal
> should focus on attempting to reason from previous ftpmaster decisions
> and other expressions of opinion by ftpmaster team members.
The resources I use to guide my analyses include:
* The wording of grant of license in the work.
* The wording of the set of license conditions granted.
* Amateur knowledge of copyright restrictions in various jurisdictions.
* The FTP master's FAQ of rejection rationales.
* The works already in the archive.
Unsurprisingly, these often conflict, and need interpretation to resolve.
That latter is, of course, a particularly weak guide, since it is too
often contradicted by rejection FAQs and even the license conditions in
the works themselves; the archive has been demonstrated to be home to
many packages that were not in fact DFSG-free, and doubtless it hosts
more to be discovered.
The amateur status (including mine) of this forum's knowledge about
copyright law is lamentable. We would love to have expert legal opinion
from qualified copyright lwyers in many jurisdictions to volunteer their
time here.
To date, it has been fruitless to attempt to attract such volunteers;
quite reasonably, those qualified to express expert legal opinion in
defense of the actions of recipients of works restricted by copyright,
are reluctant to do so outside the context of a specific defendant who
is their client.
We might wish that official opinions of the FTP master team as a whole
were better compiled, but I try to use what I am aware of. I hope to
encourage the same from others.
--
\ “We now have access to so much information that we can find |
`\ support for any prejudice or opinion.” —David Suzuki, 2008-06-27 |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Reply to: