On 25 Feb 2005 11:17:19 GMT MJ Ray wrote: > Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well-meaning authors that would like to choose a license that makes > > their software DFSG-free. [...] > > Well-meaning authors can go look at similar packages already > in main and check the copyright file.
Imitating other licensors and repeating the same poor choices again and again? Not all packages in main are under a license I would recommend (think about DFSG-free but still annoying licenses, such as the 4-clause BSD, strange "ad hoc" licenses, QPL + additional permissions that make it DFSG-compliant, and so on...). I'm not quite sure it would be a good way to enhance the current Free software situation. IMHO, license proliferation should be limited as far as possible, not encouraged... > That would be much better > advice, IMO. Actually, the copyright files are all linked from > packages.debian.org now. > > If anyone thinks it's a good idea to generate indexes from > copyright files, I'm happy to help, but I don't have a local > debian mirror to play with. Could you elaborate? What do you mean by indexes in this context? Something like database indexes? > > > MJ Ray wrote: > > > Here's an interesting point - where summaries are required, they > > > have happened outside the "DLS" series. The two most commonly > > > referred to (FDL and CC 2.0) are not DLS. > > Maybe because they have happened *before* the "DLS" series started > > (I'm referring to the GFDL ones; the CC 2.0 summary is a different > > story). > > CC 2.0 was definitely not before DLS. I'll take your word on the > FDL/DLS timing. The 1997 DLS date shown on the web is clearly fake. Wait a second: 1997 ??? 8-| I thought DLS meant "Debian Legal Summary", but now I'm confused... :p IIRC, the debian legal summary practice was first proposed and started in 2003 and, again IIRC, *after* the first public position statements about the GFDL appeared on the web... But of course, I may well be wrong: I was following debian-legal on its web archives only, at that time (reading all the 2003 GFDL-related threads via web was a real 'adventure'!). If some long-time debian-legal contributor recalls any better, he/she is welcome to correct me! :) -- Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. ...................................................................... Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpKcHBCJO4EN.pgp
Description: PGP signature