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

Re: [PROPOSAL] Allowing crypto in the main archive



Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> 
> >>"Jakob" == Jakob Bøhm <jbj@image.dk> writes:
> 
>  Jakob> 2. Mechanical filtering on specific common issues including
>  Jakob> the meta-issue "other problems" becomes possible, e.g. when
>  Jakob> creating cd-roms or mirrors, or when setting up a
>  Jakob> fool-proofing filter on apt to protect oneself from accidentally
>  Jakob> installing the wrong thing.
> 
> 
>         Someone got convicted in Texas for doing something vaguely
>  similar, on the grounds they were practicing law without a
>  licence. In fact, you shall be opening yourself to liability in the
>  US, since this is close to giving legal advice to people.
> 
>         This is one of the resons we have not previously classified
>  the non-free packages.
> 
>         manoj
> ps: I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. Please consult a
> real lawyer licenced to practice in your jursdiction.

I am not a lawyer either.

What I was proposing was, that package maintainers would
(by some future policy change not directly related to non-us)
be required to state the terms under which they were offering
their work (the package) in mechanical terms, just as DVD authors
state in mechanical terms which areas of the globe are licensed
to use the copyrighted movie.

Another way of looking at it is that Debian is *already* doing
some of this by dividing packages into main, contrib and non-free,
I am simply suggesting one way to add more granularity.

The underlying idea is, that very few people have the time to
manually review every /usr/share/doc/x/copyright file on their
system and this would allow them to perform fundamental checks
much more easily.

Another underlying idea is that not all users have the exact
same licensing needs as those expressed by DFSG.  Some may
be home users who can accept "no-commercial-use" while others
may be maintainers of non-free packages who consequently
cannot accept GPL libraries as build dependencies.

-- 
This message is hastily written, please ignore any unpleasant
wordings,
do not consider it a binding commitment, even if its phrasing may
indicate so. Its contents may be deliberately or accidentally untrue.
Trademarks and other things belong to their owners, if any.



Reply to: