Russ Allbery <r...@debian.org> writes: > Andrey Rakhmatullin <w...@debian.org> writes: >> Simon Josefsson wrote: > >>> I don't think Debian is perfectly consistent in applying that >>> principle: for example, the text of the Developer Certificate of >>> Origin (DCO) is included in Debian packages (in 'main') and has a >>> clearly non-free license, and IIRC sometimes not even in >>> debian/copyright. > >> Same for the text of GPL. > > License texts have always been a special exception, and I kind of wish we > would amend the DFSG to make that clear. Not because I think the status of > license texts is somehow in question, but because having one undeclared > exception makes people think we should have other undeclared exceptions. I > would much prefer to take the time to enumerate all of our major > exceptions.
Are you suggesting that the DCO is a license text that has to be part of
the licensing information for a piece of work, and mentioned in
debian/copyright? Clarifying that would be good. To me the DCO reads
as information intended for contributors to some project, to govern
policies around contributions, and I don't find it particulary relevant
for debian/copyright in the same way I don't find CLA texts relevant for
inclusion. I think the DCO content is similar to some of the
Non-Variant GFDL sections rejected by general principle by Debian today,
explaining matters related to contributing to a project.
To me this handling feels like having a generic rule ("no non-free
texts") and applying the rule in different ways ("DCO text" vs
"Non-Variant GFDL text") depending on what outcome we want. I find that
worse than having a (known incomplete) number of specific rules that are
applied consistently.
/Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
