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? http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep0/ > > 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? No. > If not, can we ask one of ours, if Raphael becomes DPL? Yes. > 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