On Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:57:34 +1000 Ben Finney wrote: > Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> writes: [...] > > Wait, are you saying that you consider DFSG-free to require transfer > > of copyright to the original author(s) in order to redistribute > > modified versions of a work? > > No. That's only necessary if they want to do *all* of the following: > > - maintain a clear copyright ownership path (which I argue is > necessary to avoid unfair burden on all recipients of copyright > status verification), *and* > > - modify the work (thus creating the question of copyright status of > those changes), *and* > > - redistribute the modified work, *and* > > - refrain from giving any personally-identifying information. > > The latter is *not compatible* with also holding an > externally-verifiable copyright in the modified and redistributed > work. IMO, free software cannot force people to do the first item (maintain a clear copyright ownership path). It's of course highly desirable, so that we have a less hard time in verifying the copyright status of work (should we need to do so, in order to check whether it is really free software). And the Debian Project could not feel safe enough in distributing packages with an unclear copyright ownership path: hence I think it's OK if the Project refuses to distribute anonymously (or pseudonymously) copyrighted packages. Nonetheless, I *don't* think that *requiring* modifiers/redistributors to maintain a clear copyright ownership path is DFSG-free. As usual: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpud65J2cbPI.pgp
Description: PGP signature