Re: RFC: Debian License Information on www.debian.org

[Arthur de Jong]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1


Are you aware of this page:
http://wiki.debian.net/index.cgi?DFSGLicences
It contains links to mailinglist threads.

- -- arthur - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://people.debian.org/~adejong --
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFAoy/PVYan35+NCKcRAqkcAKDk1wRrbcidBRqUcDhH/5LHMOkK2wCffGjd
YEXD1wo1sPWTCujx+0y0ZrE=
=1iwl
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: RFC: Debian License Information on www.debian.org

[Gerfried Fuchs]

* Matt Kraai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-05-04 07:53]:
> On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 01:09:21AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 11:17:29AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
>>>  I would say, we definitely need to relicense our website[1], then
>> 
>> I agree.
> 
> Given that we haven't asked contributors to assign their
> copyrights to SPI, do we have the right to do this?

 I can only speak for my part, of course. But I seriously doubt that any
contributor has something against a license that does meet the DFSGs.
After all, we are doing the webpage for Debian, aren't we.

 So long,
Alfie
-- 
 Ctrl+Option+Command + P + R
 dracus - YE GODS!  That's worse than EMACS!
 hehehehe
 don't ask what that does :P


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFC: Debian License Information on www.debian.org

[Francesco Poli]

On Sun, 2 May 2004 02:38:13 +0200 Frank Lichtenheld wrote:

> Further license summaries will be included soon,

Great! Your job is really appreciated!
We Debian enthusiasts have our own list of licenses, at last!  :-)

-- 
 |  GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | You're compiling a program
  Francesco  |Key fingerprint = | and, all of a sudden, boom!
 Poli| C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | -- from APT HOWTO,
 | 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | version 1.8.0


pgpmzJPb8eFoe.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: RFC: Debian License Information on www.debian.org

[Francesco Poli]

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 10:44:46 +0200 Andreas Barth wrote:

> I'm just preparing a summary of the three "example licenses" GPL, BSD
> and artistic, so that we can add these also on this page. Also, Frank
> is about to summarize older discussions.

Good job!
I think that having clear statements even on well-known licenses
(such as the GNU GPL) is very important and useful.
Summaries of other non-recent d-l discussions are very much appreciated,
as well.

-- 
 |  GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 | You're compiling a program
  Francesco  |Key fingerprint = | and, all of a sudden, boom!
 Poli| C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 | -- from APT HOWTO,
 | 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 | version 1.8.0


pgp6z4J3rKhss.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: RFC: Debian License Information on www.debian.org

[Nathanael Nerode]

Jakob Bohm wrote:

> Another common cause of non-distributable software happen when a
> single program combines parts under different free licenses**
> that conflict with each other in some way that makes the
> combination null and void.
s/null and void/undistributable/

Or, "some way which means that there is no valid license to distribute the
combination."

>  This is the most unfortunate kind of
> non-free software, all the parts are free** but we cannot ship
> it no matter how much we would like to do that.  Such conflicts
> can often be fixed by adding a permission notice**[link to
> above] modifying one of the licenses so it no longer fails the
> conditions imposed by the other licenses.
> 
> Examples and solutions:
> 
> BSD with advertising clause + GPL2**
> OpenSSL + GPL2 (happens a lot)**
> QPL + GPL2 (happened to KDE version 1)**

-- 
There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Re: RFC: Debian License Information on www.debian.org

[Frank Lichtenheld]

On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 01:00:50PM -0600, doug jensen wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:49:34AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > Please take a look and comment. The pages are currently not linked nor
> > mentioned on the rest of the website. I will add this after giving you
> > some time for feedback and improval suggestions.
> 
> The following is presented only as suggestions for your consideration.
> The original text is presented first with suggestions below.

Many thanks! I applied most of your suggestions.

Gruesse,
-- 
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www: http://www.djpig.de/

Re: RFC: Debian License Information on www.debian.org

[Matt Kraai]

On Tue, May 04, 2004 at 01:09:21AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 11:17:29AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> > * Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-04-30 03:49]:
> > > I just completed the first version of these pages (loosly based on the
> > > pages of the security team), put them online and added a first
> > > license, OPL, based on the summary on debian-legal by Jeremy Hankins.
> > 
> >  I would say, we definitely need to relicense our website[1], then
> 
> I agree.

Given that we haven't asked contributors to assign their
copyrights to SPI, do we have the right to do this?

-- 
Matt Kraai[EMAIL PROTECTED]http://ftbfs.org/

Re: RFC: Debian License Information on www.debian.org

[Branden Robinson]

[I am not subscribed to -www.]

On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 11:17:29AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-04-30 03:49]:
> > I just completed the first version of these pages (loosly based on the
> > pages of the security team), put them online and added a first
> > license, OPL, based on the summary on debian-legal by Jeremy Hankins.
> 
>  I would say, we definitely need to relicense our website[1], then

I agree.

> Last time I've heard about the OPL I was told it is free as long as the
> options in VI. aren't used.

That was a mistaken conclusion, which has since been superseded by a
more careful reading and understanding of the terms of the OPL.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|The errors of great men are
Debian GNU/Linux   |venerable because they are more
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |fruitful than the truths of little
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |men. -- Friedrich Nietzsche


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFC: Debian License Information on www.debian.org

[doug jensen]

On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:49:34AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> Please take a look and comment. The pages are currently not linked nor
> mentioned on the rest of the website. I will add this after giving you
> some time for feedback and improval suggestions.

The following is presented only as suggestions for your consideration.
The original text is presented first with suggestions below.

These site presents the opinion of the Debian project on how certain
licenses meet the standards set by the Debian Free Software Guidelines
(DFSG). Most of these opinions were formed in discussions on the
debian-legal mailing list. If you have questions or comments about one
of these license summaries, please contact the list.

-  s/These site/This site
-  s/one of these/any of these/
-  "please contact the list", without a link/name could possibly be
   confusing, maybe more helpful would be (not in any order):
   * Change "the list" to a "mailto:"; link   *OR*
   * Change "the list" to "debian-legal mailing list"   *OR*
   * Remove the last sentence and add to the end of the previous one;
 ", which you may contact if you have questions or comments about
 these license summaries." -- Then, maybe "contact" could be a
 "mailto:"; link.
  
Licenses are normally classified into three categories. There are free
licenses, non-free licenses and licenses that don't allow
redistribution.

-  s/licenses that don't allow redistribution/non-redistributable
   licenses/
   (NOTE:  The only reason for the change is to be consistence with
   the categories specified lower on the page.)

Free licenses do fulfill all requirements defined by the DFSG. If you're
in doubt how to interpret the DFSG, you should check the DFSG FAQ that
answers some common questions about licenses and how to classify them.  To
be licensed under a free license is a necessary (but not sufficent)
criteria for a piece of software to be included in Debian. Examples for
free licenses are the GNU General Public License, the Artistic license and
BSD style licenses.

-  s/do fulfill/meet/
-  s/If you're in doubt how to interpret/For help with interpreting/ *OR*
   s/doubt how to/doubt about how to/
-  s/sufficent/sufficient/# Depends on the next suggestion.
-  The sentence ...(but not sufficent)... may leave the reader wondering
   what is not sufficent.  Maybe replace that sentence with:
  Some licenses that are considered free by others, may not
  have all of the freedoms that are necessary to be considered
  free by Debian.
-  s/Examples for/Examples of/
#  Question:  Are all the "BSD style licenses" free?

Non-Free licenses fail one or more criteria set by the DFSG. They do allow
however at least the unlimited non-commercial redistribution of the
licensed software. Examples are licenses that restrict commercial use of
the software or licenses that make restrictions on modifications.

-  Add before the last sentence (before Examples):
   Debian provides infrastructure for certain non-free packages.
   Although not part of the Debian system, these packages are
   provided as a benefit to our users (see ?5 of our Social Contract).

We make a difference betweem non-free licenses and licenses that don't
allow unlimited non-commercial redistribution because we sometimes
distribute non-free software through our mirrors if this serves our
users (see ?5 of our Social Contract), even if it can't be a part of the
Debian distribution.  Some licenses doesn't even allow this, so we put
them in an extra category.

-  s/betweem/between/  # Depends on suggestion below
-  Change "extra" to "Non-redistributable" and provide a link to:
  http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/byclass#non-dist
-  Move the non-free explanation to the non-free paragraph.
-  Also replace the paragraph with the following:
   Non-redistributable licenses in addition to being non-free, also don't
   allow unlimited non-commercial redistribution.  This category also
   includes licenses that are silent regarding rights of redistribution.
   In other words, if the license does not specifically grant the right
   to redistribute, the assumption is that no rights are granted.  Debian
   does not support non-redistributable software and the licenses do not
   grant permission for distribution needed by the Debian mirror network.

NOTE:  The use of the next suggestion would depend on your choices regarding
the suggestions above.
-  Change the last sentence (Some licenses...) to:
 Some licenses either, don't allow redistribution or may not
 specify that redistribution is permitted.  Such licenses are
 included in the non-redistributable category.

Similar lists are maintained by the Free Software Foundation (FSF)
and the Open Source Initiative (OSI).
-  Add:  Please note however, that the Debian project uses different
 criteria to judge the categorization of licenses, as shown in
 the following lists.

We provide thre

Re: RFC: Debian License Information on www.debian.org

[Frank Lichtenheld]

On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 03:35:04AM +0200, Jakob Bohm wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:49:34AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> > http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ (and every other mirror of
> > course).
> > 
> > Please take a look and comment. The pages are currently not linked nor
> > mentioned on the rest of the website. I will add this after giving you
> > some time for feedback and improval suggestions.
> > 
> 
> I have now looked closer at the pages, and they are even better
> than I first thought!  Thanks!
> 
> Here are some small ideas that no one else seem to have posted:
> 
> 1. When the page goes real, make www.d.org/licenses and
>   www.d.org/copyright alternate names for the first page, and
>   establish cross linking with www.d.org/license (to catch the
>   obvious typos).

Will come back to this.

> 2. The non-free OSL has been given the honor of being license
>   number 001-1 Maybe you should cheat and make it number 100-1,
>   then the top free licenses can get the honors of having the
>   low numbers.

I agree that it would perhaps be good to use the first numbers
for the standard licenses (GPL,LGPL,Artistic,BSD,MIT) and move
the OPL, CC-by, OSL and whatever we can add quickly to the page
after that.

I oppose however a more complex scheme. The numbers
really should show only the order of preparation, not more. Anthing
else would probably lead to more confusion than it would help.

Thanks for your suggestions.

Gruesse,
-- 
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www: http://www.djpig.de/

Re: RFC: Debian License Information on www.debian.org

[Frank Lichtenheld]

On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 04:12:28AM +0100, Lewis Jardine wrote:
> >Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >>I just completed the first version of these pages (loosly based on the
> >>pages of the security team), put them online and added a first
> >>license, OPL, based on the summary on debian-legal by Jeremy
> >>Hankins. You can find these pages on
> >>http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ (and every other mirror of
> >>course).
> >
> 
> Possibly something on the front page explaining the differences between 
> the three categories might be useful? Maybe an introduction along the 
> lines of
[...]

I have added an introduction to the index page. My English is probably
bad though.

> 
> As an aside, I expected the links in '_free licenses_, _non-free 
> licenses_, and _licenses that don't allow redistribution_' to link to 
> definitions of the categories (rather than the list of licenses); maybe 
> others might also make the same mistake.

I changed the surrounding text a bit, hope it is clearer now.

Gruesse,
-- 
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www: http://www.djpig.de/

Re: RFC: Debian License Information on www.debian.org

[Frank Lichtenheld]

On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 11:17:29AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote:
> * Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-04-30 03:49]:
> > I just completed the first version of these pages (loosly based on the
> > pages of the security team), put them online and added a first
> > license, OPL, based on the summary on debian-legal by Jeremy Hankins.
> 
>  I would say, we definitely need to relicense our website[1], then
> Last time I've heard about the OPL I was told it is free as long as the
> options in VI. aren't used.

Yeah, we should. That's why the severity of the related bug is serious.
My problem is that I'm really unsure on _how_ we can do this. The pages
themself claim that there content is copyright SPI, so the SPI board
would probably do this. But I really don't know if this copyright notice
is actually valid... Tricky questions I think.

> > You can find these pages on http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ (and
> > every other mirror of course).
> 
>  I would put the  of the DLS in bold or something else so it stands
> out a little more. The link to DLS Index shouldn't point to "index".

Should I use "./" instead of "index"? Is that what you mean?

Gruesse,
-- 
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www: http://www.djpig.de/

Re: RFC: Debian License Information on www.debian.org

[Frank Lichtenheld]

On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 06:47:31AM -0700, Grant Bowman wrote:
> * Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040430 01:47]:
> > * Mahesh T. Pai ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040430 10:40]:
> > > 1. where should  somebody go  to if  (s)he wants to  check if  the FOO
> > > license is  DFSG compliant?  Obviously, licenses which  were in Debian
> > > for ever (like the GNU GPL) will not be mentioned in these pages.
> > 
> > I'm just preparing a summary of the three "example licenses" GPL, BSD
> > and artistic, so that we can add these also on this page. Also, Frank
> > is about to summarize older discussions.
> 
> Hi there, great work!
> 
> These two links would be great additions with some explanatory text.  My
> understanding is that the intent over time (after all licenses are
> listed) of your pages is to become similar to the pages from the
> 
> FSF   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
> 
> and 
> 
> OSI   http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html

Added them to the index page (perhaps they still need more surrounding
text though).

Thanks for the suggestion.

Gruesse,
-- 
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www: http://www.djpig.de/

Re: RFC: Debian License Information on www.debian.org

[Frank Lichtenheld]

On Thu, Apr 29, 2004 at 10:29:13PM -0400, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
> Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > I just completed the first version of these pages (loosly based on the
> > pages of the security team), put them online and added a first
> > license, OPL, based on the summary on debian-legal by Jeremy
> > Hankins. You can find these pages on
> > http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ (and every other mirror of
> > course).
> 
> Looks good -- this should be a good resource for folks who can't make
> sense of what d-l does.  Maybe it should include or link to the DFSG
> faq[1], and perhaps the DFSG as well?  There's also the cc-by
> summary[2].

Hmm, each summary and the index page already link to the DFSG (and now
also the DFSG FAQ). Further license summaries will be included soon,
thanks for that particular link.

Gruesse,
-- 
Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
www: http://www.djpig.de/

Re: RFC: Debian License Information on www.debian.org

[Jakob Bohm]

On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:49:34AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> Hi.
> 
> http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ (and every other mirror of
> course).
> 
> Please take a look and comment. The pages are currently not linked nor
> mentioned on the rest of the website. I will add this after giving you
> some time for feedback and improval suggestions.
> 

I have now looked closer at the pages, and they are even better
than I first thought!  Thanks!

Here are some small ideas that no one else seem to have posted:

1. When the page goes real, make www.d.org/licenses and
  www.d.org/copyright alternate names for the first page, and
  establish cross linking with www.d.org/license (to catch the
  obvious typos).

2. The non-free OSL has been given the honor of being license
  number 001-1 Maybe you should cheat and make it number 100-1,
  then the top free licenses can get the honors of having the
  low numbers.
  
   As a precedent, the Linux counter (counter.li.org) has
  manually reserved "Linux user #1" for Linus Thorvalds even
  though he has not yet signed up on the site (which has been up
  for more than 10 years).  All other users are numbered as they
  sign up.
  
   Following DFSG#10 as a sequence, the low numbers can be
  assigned systematically to free licenses deserving special
  honor, leaving gaps for any not yet written summaries and
  likely future license versions, something like this:
  
   [Remember DFSG#10 traditionally listed "GPL", "BSD", and
  "Artistic" in that order]
  
  001-1 GPLv1
  002-1 GPLv2
  003 reserved for GPLv3
  004 reserved for future use
  005-1 LGPLv2.0
  006-1 LGPLv2.1
  007 reserved for the next LGPL
  008 to 009 reserved to future good FSF licenses
  
  010-1 classic short one paragraph unnumbered permission notice
  011-1 classic 3 clause BSD with advertising clause
  012-1 2 clause BSD with no advertising clause
  013-1 classic 4 clause BSD with advertising clause
  014-1 3 clause BSD with no advertising clause
  015 to 019 other major BSD style licenses
  
  020 reserved for future use
  021-1 Artistic license
  022-1 Clarified Artistic license
  023 to 029 reserved for future perl or artistic licenses
  
  030-1 Genuine public domain (mostly literary works, US gov, bible)
  031-1 Plain claim of public domain assignment
  032-1 Public domain assignment combined with equivalent permission
  033 to 038 other public domain variants
  039-1 Public Domain by name only (warning against confused use).
  
  040 to 099 other major free licenses deserving an honor number
  
  100-1 OSLv2

3. http://people.debian.org/~bap/NOTES includes an old checklist
  of things to put on these pages, most is already there, but
  you might be inspired.

Once again, THANKS!

  
-- 
This message is hastily written, please ignore any unpleasant wordings,
do not consider it a binding commitment, even if its phrasing may
indicate so. Its contents may be deliberately or accidentally untrue.
Trademarks and other things belong to their owners, if any.

Re: RFC: Debian License Information on www.debian.org

[Jakob Bohm]

On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 04:12:28AM +0100, Lewis Jardine wrote:
> >Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >>I just completed the first version of these pages (loosly based on the
> >>pages of the security team), put them online and added a first
> >>license, OPL, based on the summary on debian-legal by Jeremy
> >>Hankins. You can find these pages on
> >>http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ (and every other mirror of
> >>course).
> >
> 
Great work!

> ...
> 
> As an aside, I expected the links in '_free licenses_, _non-free 
> licenses_, and _licenses that don't allow redistribution_' to link to 
> definitions of the categories (rather than the list of licenses); maybe 
> others might also make the same mistake.
> 

How about putting such a (brief!) definition at the top of each
of the 3 lists (IANAL, IANADD, TINLA).

Text ideas:

[** means previous word should be a link]
[[]is formatting hint]

Free licenses:

Software under these licenses usually satisfy the legal
requirements for inclusion in Debian main**, specifically the
Debian Free Software Guidelines[Guidelines in bold] (DFSG**) and
its general interpretation**[links to DFSG FAQ] by the
debian-legal mailing list**.  However occasionally some software
under these licenses has other legal problems and end up in
non-free (or non-distributable) anyway.

Software with free licenses go to the alternative sections
contrib**, non-US** or non-US/contrib** if they are affected by
the applicable non-license issues (which are typically not
caused by the software author).


Non-free licenses:

Software under these licenses usually do not satisfy the formal
requirements**[links to above] for inclusion in Debian main**,
but does permit online distribution through the online Debian
mirror** network.  If such software is important enough for our
users**[link to social contract] we might include it in the
so-called non-free** section of the mirrors, which is not
formally part of the Debian distribution**[link to social
contract], but still easy to access by simply including the word
"non-free" at the appropriate place in the users
/etc/apt/sources.list**[link to example] configuration file.

Licenses in this category range from almost free licenses that
lack required freedoms only in a few ways to extremely non-free
licenses that take away almost all end user freedom except the
right to distribute the software on the Debian mirror network.

If a license only lacks a few freedoms, software under such a
license might go in main if the copyright holders add the
missing freedoms as additional permissions for that particular
piece of software.  Such permissions might go in the license,
the copyright notice, an extra file in the upstream source file,
a web page or an e-mail to debian-legal etc. and should always
be quoted in full in the file
/usr/share/doc//copyright file inside the Debian
package.


Non-Distributable licenses:

Software under these licenses even fail to grant Debian the bare
minimum of permissions needed to distribute the software on the
Debian mirror** network.  This means that we cannot legally
distribute it even if we wanted to.  Typical causes for a
license ending in this category include: Simply not granting
permission to distribute, making distribution conditional on
things we cannot do (such as not distributing Linux), or
outright failing to be legally valid in some
jurisdictions**[link to the impressive mirror list] with Debian
mirrors.

[non-free license examples]

Another common cause of non-distributable software happen when a
single program combines parts under different free licenses**
that conflict with each other in some way that makes the
combination null and void.  This is the most unfortunate kind of
non-free software, all the parts are free** but we cannot ship
it no matter how much we would like to do that.  Such conflicts
can often be fixed by adding a permission notice**[link to
above] modifying one of the licenses so it no longer fails the
conditions imposed by the other licenses.

Examples and solutions:

BSD with advertising clause + GPL2**
OpenSSL + GPL2 (happens a lot)**
QPL + GPL2 (happened to KDE version 1)**


-- 
This message is hastily written, please ignore any unpleasant wordings,
do not consider it a binding commitment, even if its phrasing may
indicate so. Its contents may be deliberately or accidentally untrue.
Trademarks and other things belong to their owners, if any.

Re: RFC: Debian License Information on www.debian.org

[Grant Bowman]

* Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [040430 01:47]:
> * Mahesh T. Pai ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040430 10:40]:
> > 1. where should  somebody go  to if  (s)he wants to  check if  the FOO
> > license is  DFSG compliant?  Obviously, licenses which  were in Debian
> > for ever (like the GNU GPL) will not be mentioned in these pages.
> 
> I'm just preparing a summary of the three "example licenses" GPL, BSD
> and artistic, so that we can add these also on this page. Also, Frank
> is about to summarize older discussions.

Hi there, great work!

These two links would be great additions with some explanatory text.  My
understanding is that the intent over time (after all licenses are
listed) of your pages is to become similar to the pages from the

FSF   http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

and 

OSI   http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html

This is VERY useful, thanks for taking on this task.

-- 
-- Grant Bowman<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: RFC: Debian License Information on www.debian.org

[Gerfried Fuchs]

* Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004-04-30 03:49]:
> I just completed the first version of these pages (loosly based on the
> pages of the security team), put them online and added a first
> license, OPL, based on the summary on debian-legal by Jeremy Hankins.

 I would say, we definitely need to relicense our website[1], then
Last time I've heard about the OPL I was told it is free as long as the
options in VI. aren't used.

> You can find these pages on http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ (and
> every other mirror of course).

 I would put the  of the DLS in bold or something else so it stands
out a little more. The link to DLS Index shouldn't point to "index".

 The OPL isn't at that link anymore (at least currently). At least on
 they say it should
be but it isn't, and the root page of that domain is a Red Hat Test
Page... But that is not our fault, at least ;)  There is a different
mail on this already on debian-www.

 I'm reading debian-www only, so either Cc me *or* (xor!) debian-www on
replies if you want me to read them.

 So long,
Alfie
[1] 
-- 
 Ja, das ist ja das Problem.  Viele Leute glauben einen Menschen nach
dem üblichen Hick-Hack hier herinnen beurteilen zu können.
 Leute - das ist das IRC, nicht IRL - das ist ein Unterschied.
 * Alfie . o O ( Von 9 Zeichen im Alphabet - aber immerhin ;) )


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: RFC: Debian License Information on www.debian.org

[Andreas Barth]

* Mahesh T. Pai ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [040430 10:40]:
> 1. where should  somebody go  to if  (s)he wants to  check if  the FOO
> license is  DFSG compliant?  Obviously, licenses which  were in Debian
> for ever (like the GNU GPL) will not be mentioned in these pages.

I'm just preparing a summary of the three "example licenses" GPL, BSD
and artistic, so that we can add these also on this page. Also, Frank
is about to summarize older discussions.


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
   http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
   PGP 1024/89FB5CE5  DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F  3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C

Re: RFC: Debian License Information on www.debian.org

[Mahesh T. Pai]

(-www should please cc me in reply - MFT is set.)

Frank Lichtenheld said on Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:49:34AM +0200,:

 > As some of you might have known/noticed, Andreas Barth and I worked
 > on  a way to  present the  findings of  debian-legal on  the Debian
 > website.



 > You can find these pages on http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/

Good effort. But ...
  
1. where should  somebody go  to if  (s)he wants to  check if  the FOO
license is  DFSG compliant?  Obviously, licenses which  were in Debian
for ever (like the GNU GPL) will not be mentioned in these pages.

2. When I was new to Debian, I used to look for a page which contained
some info like  what has been put up, and  I certainly will appreciate
if the following suggestions are implemented.

Few lines at the top of the present page will help. Something like:-

There has  been a plethora of  licenses claiming to  be `free' and
'open-source'.  This  proliferation has been  causing confusion to
developers  and users  alike. While  there  is no  rule like  `all
packages license FOO' are eligible  to be included in Debian', The
license under which a  package is released is certainly considered
by  Debian while  deciding whether  a  package is  eligible to  be
included in the Debian archives. 

Debian's  policy about including  packages can  be found  (link to
www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html) here. 

These  site presents  the opinion  of  the Debian  project on  how
certain licenses  etc. (the present body)

(then, at the end)

Certain  copyright  holders  however  choose to  place  additional
restrictions, or strange  interpretations on their licenses.  Some
authors  actually provide  clarifications to  licenses, permitting
what would not be allowed by the plain test of the license. Hence,
merely  the fact  that a  license meets  the DFSG  does not
assure inclusion of a package  in Debian. In other words, not only
the  license,  but  also   the  software,  its  dependencies,  and
authors'/ copyright holders' interpretation  of the  license, all
should comply with the Debian Free Software Guidelines.

/legal, /licenses/ or  /copyright is the place where  people will look
for  this info. So,  obviously above  is to  be included  somewhere in
there.


Ps:-
I am not a DD.

-- 
+~+
  
  Mahesh T. Pai, LL.M.,   
  'NANDINI', S. R. M. Road,   
  Ernakulam, Cochin-682018,   
  Kerala, India.  
  
  http://paivakil.port5.com 
  
+~+

Re: RFC: Debian License Information on www.debian.org

[Lewis Jardine]

Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:



I just completed the first version of these pages (loosly based on the
pages of the security team), put them online and added a first
license, OPL, based on the summary on debian-legal by Jeremy
Hankins. You can find these pages on
http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ (and every other mirror of
course).




Possibly something on the front page explaining the differences between 
the three categories might be useful? Maybe an introduction along the 
lines of


These site presents the opinion of the Debian project on how certain 
licenses meet the standards set by the Debian Free Software Guidelines 
(DFSG), which describe the freedoms Debian requires for its users. We 
classify licenses as Free if they meet these standards [explanation why 
free is good], Non-Free if the software can be redistributed under 
certain conditions [explanation why this is bad], and non-distributable, 
if the license is inconsistent, or forbids redistribution [something 
about non-redistributable being bad]. [Statement about only Debian 
servers only distributing free and non-free software, carefully worded 
so as to stress that non-free is not part of the Debian distribution] 
[pointer to legal FAQ]


(but written in more concise, fluent English) might be helpful, as it is 
likely that this page will become many people's first encounter with 
debian-legal, and maybe even Debian (just as 
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html is many people's first 
encounter with the FSF). As Debian's opinions on freeness are well-know 
and respected, a page like this is likely to pull in a lot of people who 
are only familiar with [controversial license of the week], and not 
necessarily Debian jargon.




As an aside, I expected the links in '_free licenses_, _non-free 
licenses_, and _licenses that don't allow redistribution_' to link to 
definitions of the categories (rather than the list of licenses); maybe 
others might also make the same mistake.


--
Lewis Jardine
IANAL IANADD

Re: RFC: Debian License Information on www.debian.org

[Jeremy Hankins]

Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I just completed the first version of these pages (loosly based on the
> pages of the security team), put them online and added a first
> license, OPL, based on the summary on debian-legal by Jeremy
> Hankins. You can find these pages on
> http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ (and every other mirror of
> course).

Looks good -- this should be a good resource for folks who can't make
sense of what d-l does.  Maybe it should include or link to the DFSG
faq[1], and perhaps the DFSG as well?  There's also the cc-by
summary[2].

[1] http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html

[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/debian-legal-200404/msg00031.html

-- 
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333  9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03