Francesco Poli <[email protected]> writes: > But there's something unclear going on here: the debian/copyright > file of the opendmarc package states > > [...] > | As of the date shown at the top right of this page, the Contributors > | have made this Specification available under the Open Web Foundation > | Contributor License Agreement Version 1.0, which is available at: > | http://www.dmarc.org/cla.html > [...] > > and then quotes the CLA. > > Well, if I understand correctly, we are talking about some document > which is a specification (I guess it is > /usr/share/doc/opendmarc/draft-dmarc-base-00-02.txt.gz > shipped by binary package opendmarc). > > Which (copyright) license is this document released under? > > This is not clear to me: it's clear that any contributor have made > their contributions available *to* the Open Web Foundation under > the CLA, but it's unclear which (copyright) license has been chosen > *by* the Open Web Foundation to release the document *to the public*. > > I would say that this license is what is relevant to answer the > important question "does draft-dmarc-base-00-02.txt.gz comply with > the DFSG?".
Good catch and I agree -- I missed this aspect due to the size and opaqueness of the OWF CLA, and assumed there would be some "outgoing license" granted by it. But I can't find anything in the text now. So doesn't it look like there is no clear license at all for draft-dmarc-base-00-02.txt? If nobody has other input, I am inclined to open a bug report on 'opendmarc' about this. /Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
