Re: oCERT

[Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>]

Quoting Yves-Alexis Perez (corsac@debian.org):

> But CC-BY-NC is not considered
> DFSG-free so it may be an issue (see
> http://people.debian.org/~evan/ccsummary.html)

It is considered DFSG-non-free by some number of (not identified) members
of the public mailing list debian-legal, as summarised by my friend Evan
Prodromou.  As Evan's page points out, "these summaries are not binding".

In short, IMO, you just can't go by such things.  Or shouldn't, anyway.

My understanding is that DFSG-freeness gets judged by individual Debian
_developers_, with theoretical intervention by the ftp-masters and any
NMUs, -- absent a passed General Resolution, decision of the DPL,
unchallenged decision of the Project Secretary, unchallenged decision of
various Deputies, or unchallenged decision of the Technical Committee.
Neither debian-legal as a whole nor any individal subscriber to that
rather motley public mailing list has more than an advisory role.

I know it's tempting for DDs to delegate licensing issues to the
d-l licensing geeks.  However, I'd suggest that's unwise, since (1)
debian-legal doesn't even speak with one voice, anyway, and (2)
inevitably, the subject attracts some people who don't understand
trademark law (the "Trademark Restrictions" objection), lack a
reasonable sense of perspective (the "Removing References" objection),
or fail to understand that applying the law _always_ requires judgement
and that minor vagueness is simply a fact of real life in legal
situations (the "Anti-DRM clause" and "Any Other Comparable Authorship
Credit" objections).

Also, deferring to anyone who posts a "debian-legal Summary" on p.d.o
means that (3) acceptance of works are subject to veto by any
sufficiently vocal net.random subscribing to d-l and posting objections,
no matter how ludicrous.  And yes, IMO, those particular objections
don't hold up to scrutiny.

(I am not a Debian developer, nor an attorney -- but am a longtime
Debian-using sysadmin.  I help OSI evaluate and classify licences, but
don't speak for them, and I lurk on debian-legal but only rarely post.
I do appreciate Evan and others posting "summary" pages such as the one
referenced, but wish people would cease regarding them as the definitive
view of the Debian Project when they are anything but that.)