On Mon, Jan 28, 2002 at 09:51:05AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > Sven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Just upload the package, there will be someone checking the package > > and its licence, since it is a new package, and he will be one of > > the peoples you will have to convince and who has the final saying. > > Bzzt! NO!
Well, but the problem was that debian-legal was not very helpfull in solving this problem, and the thread was disolving into just plain stuborness, or so i did understand it. Not all subscribers to debian-legal have final say on the issues, i think. > Do not "just upload" packages with license questions. Sort the > questions out *first* and don't try and hide them or force the FTP > queue masters to do your job. Well, the idea was that the future maintainer believed the licence issues were solved, that any remaining problems were due to unclearness in the DFSG about it and so on, flaming on debian-legal would not advance anything about this issue, only make people bitter, so another solution would be nice. > In my opinion, the license in question is problematic for Debian. > Branden, what do you think? The point, as i understand it, is that the DFSG apparently allows distribution of stuff wich can be sold as an aggregate work (well, this is just to cover us because we distribute CDs, isn't it :))), even in paper form, and o'reilly agreed to that, and then the discution became about if i bundle a one line comment with it, would it be an aggregation, and other such, which in my opinion, are not the problem here, because the licence appears to comply with what is _written_ in the DFSG, and not what obscure meaning can be extracted from it by people wanting to play with words. Anyway, if people want to take o'reilly's work, and just add a comment and then redistribute it, i am sure o'reilly will not be happy about it, and it will be up to the courts to sort of this problem. But anyway, it is not us who will have a problem about it, and if someone wants to do a book of debian packaged books, or somethihng such, he could, so it is DFSG compliant. Also, the only way in which we can solve this problem would be to add some clarification to this point, to explain in the DFSG what exact inbterpretation is meant about aggregation, and not bicker about, if aggregation is meant, if a work + 1 line of text is an aggregation (well, altough it is in words, it is not in spirit). At least that is how i understood this, and i agree that i didn't invest myself much about it, but i know stefano, and i know, that if he felt that it was not ok to put it in main, then he would not do it, and that is why i suggested that he uploaded it. Also he was not asking about wanting to put things in main, but what was the best place for it, he discussed with oreilly, which read the DFSG and proposed their licence accordyingly. And now i have said enough about it, for someone who did not follow the discution, maybe a bit too much even ... Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
