On Tuesday 30 November 2004 01:52, Jean-Michel Hiver wrote: > > I feel an urge to say that it is reasonably safe to assume that scripts > which are directly taken out of something distributed with debian (try > apt-get install wondershaper) are at least as libre as the GPL is - so I > don't think that posting a hacked copy makes it an infringement.
Would this also mean, that I am wrong? Legal notices are - I do agree - ridiculous, but necessary. They are required by most governments, and if we take this to the furthest consequence - which many corporations are known to do, for whatever cause - this very important piece of text would make the difference. Am I wrong? > Furthermore, since this is a technical list, I don't really see the > point of clobbering it with ridiculous legalese all over. Can't we have > a usage policy that states that derivatives posted through the list are > automatically under the same license as the original or something? I think we should, too. Why not have a "GPL-licensed mailing list", when the software we're trying to support and maintain is GPL-licensed? However, as stated here: http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/disclaimer You still own the copyright (and restrict it to the furthest possible by default of many governments). This means that we have to keep noting that scripts meant for distribution are licensed under our favorite license, otherwise they aren't. > You forgot a disclaimer about confidentiality and liabilitiy at the > bottom of your email. Man you're such a rebelz :-) It's not a question of reaching for rebellion, but merely to strive to make the opensource/Free Software-community remember such necessecities. Furthermore, I am liable for my opinions; I won't disclam such. It would be pointless to have opinions, if one would disclaim them at the moment of publication. As so, when it comes to confidentiality. Please note, that I am sorry for being so off-topic. Should this discussion be taken off the list? Regards, Anders Breindahl.
