Re: Doubts and Ideas
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 05:51:25PM +0200, Javier Fernández-Sanguino Pe?a wrote:
> > What license problem? Everything is licensed to SPI, always has been.
> I'm suprised you ask this. Have you read 238245?
Obviously not :)
> Several problems:
> - The website claims the Copyright belongs to SPI even if no contributor,
> AFAIK, is asked a paper signed email to transfer copyright before they
> start contributing. We should change this and start collecting (c)
> transfers from (at least) current and future contributors.
> As per the discussion in #238245, since this has not been done the content
> is not "legally" licensed by SPI.
Er, I think this is a false dilemma. People who were committing have always
been committing to the same place where license.wml said SPI, and it said
OPL. Granted, without explicit relinquishments, it may not be SPI's in the
strictest possible sense, but I doubt that we couldn't argue so in court,
if someone ever contested that. This wasn't us having people click-through
a EULA, these were completely willful acts of asking for access, accepting
the rules, and only then committing changes.
> - Debian-legal says that the website license (OPL) not DFSG-free (see
This is the same thing as with the logo licenses... in reality, nobody
cares, because the web site isn't part of the Debian system.
> This means no content from the site can (legally) be copied over to, for
> example, a GPL-licensed document (such as those produced by the DDP) or
> a GPL program.
> Does this happen often? I couldn't say,
It's unlikely that our web pages have much content for which there isn't
prior art, or simply common knowledge.
All this license nitpicking in Debian really tends to get annoying to me...
We could actually go about whining at people adding stuff to the web site
without proper references to whatever is the primary source!
2. That which causes joy or happiness.