Re: Final updates for this Python Policy revision
anatoly techtonik <techtonik@gmail.com> writes:
> The policy is under GPL license which is kind of ridiculous to prevent
> citing Debian Policy in private talks.
Why is it ridiculous? Is it any more ridiculous to put a policy document
under GPL than any other document?
> I imagine people discussing "those folks at Debian. Have you heard -
> they've changed you-know-what to make packaging easier". =)
I don't know what this means.
> Is there any license that more clearly states reason behind choosing
> the license? Seems like GPL in this case was chosen just because
> "everything is GPL".
I think that any free-software license that the copyright holders choose
is fine for this work.
Why do you want specific justification for choosing the GPL?
What specific problems do you see from choosing the GPL for a work, and
why should those problems concern us in this case?
> What about http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ ?
Are you saying that license preferable to the GPL for this work? How so?
> It is compatible with DFSG
As is the GPL.
--
\ “I fly Air Bizarre. You buy a combination one-way round-trip |
`\ ticket. Leave any Monday, and they bring you back the previous |
_o__) Friday. That way you still have the weekend.” —Steven Wright |
Ben Finney
Reply to: