Your message dated Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:45:58 -0400
with message-id <2542509.ytqeQv9KTU@scott-latitude-e6320>
and subject line Re: Bug#704006: Non-free specification document
has caused the Debian Bug report #704006,
regarding Non-free specification document
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
704006: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=704006
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: opendmarc
Version: 1.1.1-1
Severity: serious
This package contains the following specification file:
opendmarc-1.1.1/docs/draft-dmarc-base-00-02.txt
The license for it is discussed in debian/copyright:
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/o/opendmarc/current/copyright
However the OWFa contributor license does not grant any lights to other
people -- it seems to only be about granting rights TO the OWFa from
other people who want to make changes to it. Thus there are no rights
granted to anyone else but the OWFa on this document. At least this is
my understanding. OWFa was discussed on the debian-legal list some time
ago but I forgot to file this bug to have a real followup on the issue.
See:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal/34883/focus=34888
The first question is to settle what license people get to the document
above, and secondly whether that is DFSG compliant. It seems the first
question is unclear now.
Thanks,
/Simon
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 03:53:46 PM Scott Kitterman wrote:
> It was certainly my impression that that license is sufficient and I think
> it safe to assume FTP masters agree as the file with this license was
> present when opendmarc went through New.
I should add that I've discussed this with some of the people involved in
developing the specification and they are certainly under the impression that
the license conveys more general rights. It was just submitted, with some
minor modifications, to the IETF as draft-kucherawy-dmarc-base-00 (which I
know is non-free for other reasons). If the OWF wasn't sublicensable, then
the submitter to the IETF wouldn't have the inbound rights to make the
submission.
I would imagine the next release of opendmarc will use the IETF draft instead
which I will, of course, remove.
I don't agree with debian-legal and this'll go away one way or another shortly
anyway.
--- End Message ---
