Re: Hacking License
Giacomo Tesio writes ("Re: Hacking License"):
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 at 18:31, Ian Jackson
> <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> > I recommend to my fellow Debian Developers that they do not try to
> > introduce into Debian a package with this licence. In particular,
> > I would recommend to my fellow DDs not to sponsor such a package.
> > That will save ftpmaster the bother of reviewing this licence.
>
> I guess this is a political recommendation with the weight of an order.
I have no more authority on this question than any other DD. Maybe
you will find one who disagrees. Debian is far from homogenous.
> Is there something I can do about it?
> If the problem is not in the text of the license, how can I fix it?
In the short term, you can add a clear compatibility clause that
allows relicensing as a well-known existing licence, or you can use an
existing licence.
In the longer term you can engage with the copyleft community - in
fora other than debian-legal - to move the wider community's centre of
opinion in your preferred direction.
Or you can try to find some DD who has the time and inclination to
- sponsor your package at a technical level
- ignore or disagree with recommendations from people like me
- review your licence in detail
- engage with you and with Debian ftpmaster to help resolve
whatever issues they and you and ftpmaster identify
For the avoidance of any doubt, I think I am probably not opposed to
your political goals. I may well even support them. That seems
likely. Maybe they are even important enough to justify a new
licence, but I think they don't justify trying to go it alone in the
way you seem to be doing.
> However, if you express the consensus in Debian, I suggest to fix the
> texts at https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/ and at
> https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq so that it more clearly
> express the intents, boundaries and goals of this mailing list.
As for the first link, it says only
| Copyright, licensing and patent issues
| Discussions about legality issues such as copyrights, patents etc.
which IMO accurately describes the scope of the list within Debian.
I'm sorry that not all of Debian's practices, including our
disinclination to help with the detailed review and drafting of
bespoke licences, are documented. If this were to be documented it
would be in the Developers' Reference, probably, and certainly not the
mailing list description.
The second link is someone's personal web page over which I have no
control, and over which Debian exercises no control other than to
avoid things like Code of Conduct breaches. It has the word `DRAFT'
in the page title. If you have read anywhere that it is in any way
official, please let me know and I will arrange to have its status
made clearer.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: