On Sun, Sep 09, 2012 at 09:31:41PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
I am following up to your August bits from the DPL, since I still have
to understand why it was suggested to dual license the Open Use Logo
with Debian under LGPLv3+ / CC-by-sa-v3.0.
I have already asked in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2012/08/msg00017.html
but I have received no answer for this question.
As I've pointed out in my reply to that, I've collected your comments
though and asked more info about that. In particular, I've asked the
possibility about relicensing under more liberal licenses (such as
Expat) and I've been advised not to do that. I don't have a detailed
argumentary to share, as the discussion has been informal, but the main
argument is that a license that basically allows you to do whatever you
want is a bad mix with marks (be them registered or not). This explains
the general choice of copyleft.
Anyway, as long as a copyleft is needed, I think that a LGPLv3+ /
CC-by-sa-v3.0 dual license would be a poor choice, since it's
GPLv3-compatible, but GPLv2-incompatible.
Regarding the version of the license (which I've been advised to
choose), instead of reasoning about abstract issue, I've reviewed some
of the usual documentation material and also asked [1] the teams that
IMHO would be potentially impacted the most by the change. I've asked
explicitly if they had issues with the license choice, including the
version. Having got no reasons to choose otherwise I've ended up
deciding, under my sole responsibility of course, for the aforementioned
licenses.
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-www/2012/08/msg00115.html
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o
Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o
Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o .
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
