Re: FYI: Creative Commons 4.0 process starts
Stefano Zacchiroli dijo [Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 12:26:09AM +0100]: I hope Debian folks (especially ftpmasters) will be willing to subscribe to the cc-licenses list and help ensure that the CC 4.0 licenses will be suitable for Debian. (...) So, to turn this into something even more useful: is there anyone willing to keep an eye on the CC process on behalf of Debian? The ideal candidate should be a license geek in agreement with the current position of the Debian Project on which licenses are DFSG-free and which are not. We would all love if such a person will take care of reporting what is going on in the CC process, looking from a Debian angle, on a regular basis. I am interested and willing to follow up on the discussion. I'll subscribe to the list - Although I'm currently on a soft-vacation and won't be able to pay too much attention until the beginning of January. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: conflict between name and text of a license
Le Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:28:05PM +0100, Cédric Boutillier a écrit : I am packaging a software containing files with the COPYING file here attached. They have a double BSD and DR, but the text below BSD License is in fact that of the MIT/Expat license. Dear Cédric, since the Expat license is already a renamed MIT license, I think that you can go ahead and call the syck's files license MIT or Expat. If it is for a copyright file in the DEP 5 format, it is preferred to call it Expat. You can anyway add a comment reminding that the files' author wrongly called the license BSD, if you would like. If you think that we can not exclude that the author, when writing BSD, really meant that he wants his software to be licensed under the same terms as a BSD license, and not under the terms that he wrote, then maybe the safest would be to help the upstream author who uses these files in unit tests to replace them. That would also have the advantage of getting rid of the DR, which some (me for instance) may find bad taste. One of the problems of saying BSD is that it does not indicate the terms clearly, as for instance the first version of the BSD license had a GPL-incompatible advertisemnt clause… Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111213231832.gc19...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: a Free Platform License?
Clark: You should speak to FSF, and possibly to Richard Stallman himself about this idea. How to enforce such a license against porting software to Wine ? I do not know... Anyway: originally Free Software was very permissive (MIT-style), non-copyleft. Then came in the GPL. Now came the AGPL to enforce Free Software for Web / Cloud. Will Free Platform License be the next step ? It *is* clearly a stronger copyleft than both GPL and AGPL. And yes, I agree it will open a new window of dual-license companies. GPL-compatibility: It *is* possible to make it GPL-compatible, if Stallman releases GPLv4 with such forward-compatibility, like he did with GPLv3-AGPLv3 license bridge. GPLv4 (or v3.1?) can be a small revision against GPLv3 only adding ability to migrate to this new license. If you can convince Stallman, GPL-compatibility can be done. About Debian's DFSG: I'm not sure if such a license will violate DFSG5: No discrimination against persons or groups., but it might. and DFSG9 also. BETA-testing of software: Today, much of cross-platform Open Source Software is tested by Windows crowd. VirtualBox, LibreOffice, and more are examples of this... Linux-only versions (KVM and KOffice) enjoy from less testers. Speak to Free Software Foundation or to Software Freedom Law Center. -- -Alexey Eromenko Technologov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAOJ6w=g2kvac8i8o-msgggvrc1ht1hfibkit-p99j7dxzm3...@mail.gmail.com
