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

Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section

On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 01:25:07PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 05:35:29PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Well, what about a hardcopy of the O'Reilly book plus a one-sentence
> > dedication to my dog?  To be more realistic, how about the statement
> > "Printed 2002 by FooBar Inc".  It seems that allowing aggregate
> > for-profit distribution is the same as allowing for-profit
> > distribution of the original.  It seems to be a nonsense restriction,
> > and makes me think that the O'Reilly people haven't quite thought
> > through the implications.
> If the case will occur O'Reilly can figth an holy war against who made
> the redistribution and try to demostrate what is an aggregate
> distribution and waht is not!
> [ BTW the same "nonsense restriction" is reported in the DFSG, so
> probably also we "haven't quite thought through the implications."? ]
> Anyway I don't care about this. These are O'Reilly's problems.
> I just want to know if the reported requirements imposed by O'Reilly are
> free enough to satisfy DFSG or not.
> BTW, since now I have seen no progress talking on this list to learn
> what I'm looking for. Does exists an "official" authority that can say
> if the reported requirement fall in the DFSG-free category? If such an
> authority does not exists I will put the book in non-free section.
> Woody is coming and I don't want to miss the package for a long long
> long legal disquisition.

Stefano, ...

Just upload the package, there will be someone checking the package and its
licence, since it is a new package, and he will be one of the peoples you will
have to convince and who has the final saying.


Sven Luther

Reply to: