Re: Q for all candidates: license and copyright requirements
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Bernd Zeimetz <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> with <20100124144741.GD13468@kunpuu.plessy.org> Charles Plessy came up with a
> draft GR "Simplification of license and copyright requirements for the Debian
> I'd like to know from Charles Plessy if the draft from January still reflect his
> current opinion or if his mind changed.
> From the other candidates I'd like to know their opinion and plans (if there are
> any) about license/copyright requirements in Debian.
I agree with zack that this is not a decision that the DPL should
take. It's a decision that should be done through a GR, that the DPL
can support or not, but I hope that Charles knows that even if he won,
it wouldn't mean that it'd be ok to change such policy without a GR
(or, at least, another form of consensus on this matter).
Regarding the proposal itself, I'm not sure I see how much we would be
gaining by not mentioning the copyright holder or reproducing the
copyright notice. We would still have to analyze whether the license
requires the copyright notice, the copyright holder, or both. In that
case, I think it's simpler to keep with what we have, but I don't have
too strong a position about this.
Regarding software in the source packages, I do believe that "The
Debian System" is both the binary and the source packages, and as such
we shouldn't distribute non-free stuff, either in the binary or in the