Re: Draft GR: Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian packages.
Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>
> [...] my personal conclusion that this time could be
> better spent for other efforts. I therefore propose to make these
> practices optional. Since it is a major change in our traditions, I propose
> to make a GR to make sure that there is a consensus.
As will become clear, I disagree with at least one significant point
of the premise, but I'm also not clear that this is merely a GR to
show consensus.
The copyright documentation practices are mostly the decision of the
ftpmasters (although advised by various people), so this GR is actually
overriding their decision. What is their view of these ideas?
My personal conclusion is also that this time could be better spent,
but for it to be safe to do that would require changes in copyright
law, so you would be best off campaigning for liberalisation of
copyright and related rights as a first step.
> According to our social contract, “We promise that the Debian system and all
> its components will be free according to [the DFSG].” My understanding of this
> is that the Debian system, our binary packages, is free and therefore we
> distribute its sources, the source packages. If these source packages contain
> non-free files that have no impact on the binary packages, I think that it can
> be said that they are not part of the Debian system. [...]
Wow, that's a twist. So how do you get around the idea that the
program must include source?
Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: