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

Re: Validity of DFSG #10

On Du, 06 ian 13, 19:09:28, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 05:46:44PM +0000, Bart Martens wrote:
> > How would you organize setting up an authoritative and maintained list of
> > verified DFSG-free licenses ? Which formal steps would need to be completed
> > before an additional license or license version would be added to the list ?
> > How to deal with mistakes on the list ? Do we have sufficient volunteers with
> > sufficient legal knowledge to maintain such list ? Maybe this part should be
> > dealt with further on debian-legal.
> Hold on :-) All you're discussing here already exists. FTP masters vet
> software that enters the archive, de facto deciding whether the
> associated licenses are DFSG free or not. I didn't want to imply that we
> should change anything of that. We should rather consolidate the work
> they do and index licenses, decisions, and rationales for such decisions
> in a central place that people can look at.
> I haven't asked, but I suspect FTP masters have already enough on their
> plates to be interested in doing the publishing/indexing work too. But
> it's something that anyone can pick up, possibly agreeing on FTP masters
> on a way of being notified of new decisions.

As far as I know, when a software is rejected the Maintainer receives an 
e-mail notification.

Assuming such message has at least minimal information and it is CCd 
somewhere public (e.g. the ITP bug or debian-legal) others could pick it 
up and propose a patch to w.d.o/legal/licenses to be acknowledged by 

What do you think?

Kind regards,
Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers:

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: