Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I noticed that bug #384019 has been recently closed. [...] > The bug was closed because an FTP-master (James Troup) stated that the > Open Publication License v1.0 without options is fine for main. [...] > What should be done, in your opinion? > Should the bug be reopened?
No. I think the outer-surfaces problem is just an obnoxious advertising clause, it seems unlikely that this particular licensor will try to enforce 'identified' in a bad way and upstream tracking is OK. That summary is from the debian-legal summaries experiment, didn't seem to convince many people and I feel it contains bad advice (specifying source). Summary: the Open Publication License v1.0 is irritating in several ways (ad clause, optional sections, over-specific change advice), but fine for main unless its options are used or the licensor interprets it in a bad way. By the way, in http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-vim-maintainers/2006-August/003211.html the DPL criticises debian-legal for not yet tidying up the copyright bugs of www.d.o - which is something we were waiting for the DPL+SPI to decide since 2005-10. Bizarre. Time for us to ping it if this DPL won't? Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
