Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
On Tue, Jan 29, 2002 at 12:23:48AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Sven <email@example.com> writes:
> > Yes, please, remove it and clarify this stuff.
> > (it would need a vote though, isn't it ?
> And discussion somewhere else. :)
Ok, i guess devbian-vote wqould be the right place ? Or maybe
> > But it makes for lost time speaking about it, for misinterpretation from
> > outside folk (like the oreilly guys reading the dfsg and thinking it is ok)
> > and weaken our position. Again, clarifying this in the source would be much
> > better than long discutions. ...
> Well, the DFSG is not some kind of "if you meet this, we promise you
> pass". It's an *internal* guideline for Debian. We make *our*
> (Debian's) judgement--"our" includes you, Sven--and then decide what
> we do. If it's really important for their package to be in Debian,
> then they should ask us.
Mmm, not sure, the DFSG is more than just our internal standard, it is a
guideline for all the people out there, and also it is an internal standard on
which we have to look, especially as people change. Following the DFSG and
clarifying it as possible if also the guarant of the fairness of the decision,
and the guardians against cabalistic decision making on licences, ...
That said, it is not oreilly who want their book into debian, it is stefano,
and also the other debian/ocaml maintainers which think it would be a usefull
addition for the debian users. Stefano did contact Oreilly about the licence
issue, did discuss with them, and asked on advice on debian-legal, on how to
best solve this. He is a valuable debian member, and i don't think his opinion
is against freeness, nor is he advocating Oreilly's position, and that is
quickly forgotten here.
Ok, let's stop here, i don't think i have more to say anyway.