Re: W3C FSA (Final Specification Agreement)
Thorsten Glaser <email@example.com> writes:
> Hi Ben,
> >Debian doesn't consist of licenses; it consists of software works
> >under specific grants of license.
> Last time I looked, there was no difference in practice except
> for the GFDL. So, DWIM ;-)
That's not the case. Without knowing the grant of license, one doesn't
know whether the copyright holder permits, for example, redistribution
under the GPL version 2 only, or version 3 only, or the GPL version 3 or
any later version, or the recipient's choice of GPL version 3 or
CC-By-SA 4.0, etc.
So it's essential to know what is the specific *grant of license* from
the copyright holder to recipients of the work.
> >Are you proposing a Debian package of the MusicXML standard? Or some
> >other work?
> I was wondering what to do if there was a piece of software
> containing the MusicXML specification or DTDs as part of itself.
Do you know of such a work, proposed for inclusion in Debian?
If not, I think we shouldn't spend much time on speculation :-)
\ Lucifer: “Just sign the Contract, sir, and the Piano is yours.” |
`\ Ray: “Sheesh! This is long! Mind if I sign it now and read it |
_o__) later?” —http://www.achewood.com/ |