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

Re: All DPL Candidates: www.debian.org licensing?

On 11/03/08 at 16:22 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> wrote: [...]
> > It seems to me that, for this issue to be solved, we first need a
> > clear consensus on debian-www@ about:
> > - the plan we are going to follow
> I believe we need legal advice on the validity of the various plans
> before there will be a clear consensus on one.  The relevant published
> legal opinions on relicensing were commissioned by people who appear
> to have interests in copyright assignments, which the debian project
> does not share.
> > - the license we are going to use
> There seemed to be broad consensus on BSD-style as default with other
> DFSG licences like GPLv2 being allowed, didn't there?

I don't think so. Some people want a BSD license, some want the GPL,
some want to write their own license. It would look like a good idea to
have a single license for the whole website, or at least a license
policy (like "anything DFSG-compliant and compatible with GPL v2 or
later") that won't annoy anybody later.

> > It could be a good idea to write a DEP about that, so other developers
> > have a clear document to read and understand (as opposed to a bug log).
> Maybe.  What's the current DEP HOWTO?


> > Questions about that issue:
> > 1) You seem to think that delegating someone now would be useful. Why?
> I think we should ask a debian-tied lawyer before doing a lot of unfun
> work which may turn out to be useless if we get it wrong.  I'm not
> confident that we can do this through SPI unless the DPL or a delegate
> asks, because some SPI members seem to oppose it without that.  Even
> so, I think SPI is the best route for the project to ask a lawyer.

I agree, but why are you asking for a delegation (constitution 5.1.1)
instead of simply asking the DPL to tell SPI that X is going to be the
interface between -www@ and SPI on that issue.

Ultimately, after legal advice is seeked, it's still -www@ who is going
to decide, no?

> > 2) Javier Fernández-Sanguino Peña's plan include:
> > | b) old contributors to the web site [..] should be contacted and ask to
> > |    agree to this license change.
> > |
> > | c) a note should be added to the Debian site [..] describing the
> > |    license change [..] and giving a 6 month  period for comments.
> >
> > If some old contributors can't be contacted, would a note on the website
> > visible for 6 months be legally enough to move forward with the license
> > change? Later, you suggested shortening that period. Is this legally
> > possible?
> I expect the validity of using a general notice depends more on
> whether it was reasonably prominent, rather than having a 6 month
> comment period, but I don't know: I am not a lawyer.  Are you?


> If not, can we ask one of ours, if Raphael becomes DPL?


> Hope that clarifies,

It does, thank you
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr             GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: