On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 09:31:41PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > I am following up to your August bits from the DPL, since I still have > to understand why it was suggested to dual license the Open Use Logo > "with Debian" under LGPLv3+ / CC-by-sa-v3.0. > > I have already asked in > https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/08/msg00017.html > but I have received no answer for this question. As I've pointed out in my reply to that, I've collected your comments though and asked more info about that. In particular, I've asked the possibility about relicensing under more liberal licenses (such as Expat) and I've been advised not to do that. I don't have a detailed argumentary to share, as the discussion has been informal, but the main argument is that a license that basically allows you to do whatever you want is a bad mix with marks (be them registered or not). This explains the general choice of "copyleft". > Anyway, as long as a copyleft is needed, I think that a LGPLv3+ / > CC-by-sa-v3.0 dual license would be a poor choice, since it's > GPLv3-compatible, but GPLv2-incompatible. Regarding the version of the license (which I've been advised to choose), instead of reasoning about abstract issue, I've reviewed some of the usual documentation material and also asked [1] the teams that IMHO would be potentially impacted the most by the change. I've asked explicitly if they had issues with the license choice, including the version. Having got no reasons to choose otherwise I've ended up deciding, under my sole responsibility of course, for the aforementioned licenses. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-www/2012/08/msg00115.html Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature