On Tue, 26 Jan 2010, Carsten Munk wrote:
2010/1/26 Graham Cobb <g+...@cobb.uk.net>:
As a member of the community, my view is that we should clearly adopt one of
the standard definitions of open source. I don't particularly care whether
we adopt the OSD or some other definition. For practical reasons (as we are
based on Debian) I would suggest adopting "the Debian DFSG as defined by the
Debian Social Contract and operated by the Debian project". In practice that
is identical to OSD I believe but it would mean we can rely on the
debian-legal determinations when they exist (and, in particular, we can
re-use anything from Debian's free section).
Agreed, one problem with OSD would be that it doesn't cover CC
licensed materials or non-software - we do have themes, artwork and so
on that are CC. On a sidenote, we have themes that are CC SA 2.5 (due
to license of template from Fremantle), which would fail the DFSG
definition and not being admittable to extras free in such a
situation.
If they are not free, they should not be in free section. Otherwise, why
is that section called free?
--
Matan Ziv-Av. ma...@svgalib.org
_______________________________________________
maemo-developers mailing list
maemo-developers@maemo.org
https://lists.maemo.org/mailman/listinfo/maemo-developers
