Your message dated Fri, 8 Jul 2005 01:39:55 +0300 with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and subject line Bug#317365: ..debian policy advice on the GPL etc as licenses or contracts, _should_ be in 2.1 and 12.5, is not. has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with. If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith. (NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact me immediately.) Debian bug tracking system administrator (administrator, Debian Bugs database) -------------------------------------- Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 7 Jul 2005 22:15:49 +0000 >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 07 15:15:49 2005 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from (viruswall2.itp.as) [80.239.8.2] by spohr.debian.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1Dqeer-0004dT-00; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:15:49 -0700 Received: from gjesdal.net ([80.239.26.39]) by viruswall2.itp.as (SAVSMTP 3.1.0.29) with SMTP id M2005070800123032359 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 00:12:30 +0200 Received: from 127.0.0.1 ([80.239.32.254]) by gjesdal.net (gjesdal.net [80.239.26.39]) (MDaemon.PRO.v6.8.4.R) with ESMTP id 33-md50000000001.tmp for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 08 Jul 2005 00:20:23 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: ..debian policy advice on the GPL etc as licenses or contracts, _should_ be in 2.1 and 12.5, is not. X-Mailer: reportbug 3.15 Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 00:15:37 +0200 X-Spam-Processed: gjesdal.net, Fri, 08 Jul 2005 00:20:23 +0200 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source) X-MDRemoteIP: 80.239.32.254 X-Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.1 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_44,HAS_PACKAGE autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 X-Spam-Level: Package: debian-policy Version: 3.6.2.1 Severity: serious Justification: ..long term litigation hazard. ...subject 'n justification 'n bug#317359 tells the story, further discussion can be found on Groklaw and likely d-legal too, the GPL is a license because it gives a permission to do something, such as distribution, on a certain condition, "also distribute the source." ...no agreement, "just act on it or Face the Wrath of Copyright Law." ...Microsoft et al likes to confuse the legal issues by calling the sales or renting contracts for their binaries, "End User License Agreement". That very "Ok"-click agreement, makes it a contract. ....contracts too can be enforced in court, "because we agreed." ....their long term strategic reason is profit from litigation etc when they fail to compete on their own merits. ...to succeed in such litigation, license and "license agreement" confusion is needed, both in the media, in courts and, in the general public, the members of the legislature and the juries are drawn from there. ....unless we agree with Microsoft that the GPL is a contract, we should clarify our position and policy as above, for the KDE guys, it's `just remove "Agreement" from those tabs, and leave "License" on them tabs', for other maintainers, there will be similar such wee oversights to fix, and one such wee oversight is very reason I file this bug. ;o) ...please add relevant advice on "the GPL etc as licenses or contracts under Debian Policy" to sections 2.1 and 12.5 of the Debian Policy Manual. -- System Information: Debian Release: testing/unstable APT prefers testing APT policy: (990, 'testing'), (500, 'unstable'), (500, 'stable'), (1, 'experimental') Architecture: i386 (i586) Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash Kernel: Linux 2.6.10-1-386 Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C (charmap=ANSI_X3.4-1968) -- no debconf information --------------------------------------- Received: (at 317365-done) by bugs.debian.org; 7 Jul 2005 22:49:30 +0000 >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jul 07 15:49:29 2005 Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Received: from smtp-2.hut.fi [130.233.228.92] by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian)) id 1DqfBR-0004Jv-00; Thu, 07 Jul 2005 15:49:29 -0700 Received: from localhost (katosiko.hut.fi [130.233.228.115]) by smtp-2.hut.fi (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j67Mmv8Y002862 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 01:48:57 +0300 Received: from smtp-2.hut.fi ([130.233.228.92]) by localhost (katosiko.hut.fi [130.233.228.115]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 23381-31-2 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 01:48:57 +0300 (EEST) Received: from xieana.donarmstrong.org (a130-233-4-198.debconf5.hut.fi [130.233.4.198]) by smtp-2.hut.fi (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id j67Me6te002234 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 8 Jul 2005 01:40:06 +0300 Received: (nullmailer pid 18894 invoked by uid 1000); Thu, 07 Jul 2005 22:39:55 -0000 Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2005 01:39:55 +0300 From: Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Bug#317365: ..debian policy advice on the GPL etc as licenses or contracts, _should_ be in 2.1 and 12.5, is not. Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mail-Followup-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> X-Debbugs-Cc: debian-policy@lists.debian.org User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-TKK-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.1.2-hutcc at katosiko.hut.fi X-BadReturnPath: [EMAIL PROTECTED] rewritten as [EMAIL PROTECTED] using "From" header Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.5 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_10,HAS_BUG_NUMBER, X_DEBBUGS_CC autolearn=ham version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02 X-Spam-Level: On Fri, 08 Jul 2005, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > ....unless we agree with Microsoft that the GPL is a contract, we > should clarify our position and policy as above, for the KDE guys, > it's `just remove "Agreement" from those tabs, and leave "License" > on them tabs', for other maintainers, there will be similar such wee > oversights to fix, and one such wee oversight is very reason I file > this bug. ;o) Whether or not the GPL is a contract or not is dependent upon the language and actualization of local law. If the license is just a license under local law, then a license it will remain. If it's a contract, then it will remain a contract. It is not the place of Debian Policy to attempt to define the manner in which local law is to be interpreted. Thus, this bug report is spurious, and is being summarily closed. Don Armstrong -- This space for rent http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]