Le 29/01/2012 04:27, Charles Plessy a écrit : > I think that there will be much confusion if we ask people to license their > work under “MIT and GPL-2+” and then release it under “MIT or GPL-2+”. Given the number of responses focusing on this (important) nip-ticking, I can only agree about the confusing part. I thought proposing the “MIT and GPL-2+” formulation should avoid that people just pick one of them when replying to us, and would be the safest way on the legal side, but according to previous replies, it also introduces misunderstanding. Here is another proposal, that respects the w.d.o/license wording, and should also be safe on the legal side (the trick is on the “redistribution” part): ----------------------8<----------------------8<---------------------- I hereby give permission to redistribute and/or modify all the material that I have provided to the Debian website <URL:http://www.debian.org/> under the terms of the MIT (Expat) License or of the GNU General Public License, version 2 or any later version. ---------------------->8---------------------->8---------------------- Le 26/01/2012 14:15, Florian Weimer a écrit : >> provided to the Debian website > > Perhaps it could be made clearer that this applies to the web site > proper Good point, added an URL in the previous wording to make it clear. >> - members of security team who provided DSA (in security/<year>/); > Are they really covered by copyright? I hope so, since they're on our website, that is trying to comply with a DFSG free license. If there is an issue here, we can still think about how to address it later. There will be other issues, some that we already thought about, and probably more will pop up soon when we'll begin the relicensing process. I would prefer to focus on the stuff that we can easily address first, and once we will have a better idea of the actual issues, we will expose them and try to resolve them. Regards David
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature