discuss: Debian-free licenses was Re: modifiability of docs: final decision
Subject:
Re: Debian-free licenses was Re: modifiability of docs: final decision
From:
Rick Moen ####@####.####
Date:
10 Mar 2005 20:16:40 -0000
Message-Id: <20050310201637.GR27314@linuxmafia.com>
Quoting Rahul Sundaram ####@####.####
> it should be trivially simple to check this up IMO.
> Debian definitely should have a authoratitive list of
> licenses that it considers "free"
You may recall you and I discussing this exact point, here, in April 2004:
It was (and is) my contention that Debian lacks any authoritative list
-- and that one would be well advised to check skeptically the basis of
the claimed or implied authority for any such list that someone might post.
> if finding out which licenses Debian would include in its free
> repository involved reading such documents and infering from it our
> own opinions then its too complex for me.
Ah, now _that's_ an easier problem, and can be resolved procedurally:
1. Convince a maintainer to submit a package.
2. Observe which collection he puts it in. Make sure you wait for
any subsequent NMU (non-maintainer update) or administrative action
that changes that.
3. Repeat.
I'm being only a tiny bit facetious. See below.
> Your answers are not the problem but the situation definitely is.
It's not really that bad a situation. The worst that's likely[1] to
happen is that some package ends up in a different collection from the
one you expected. As Doug said in the 2004 discussion -- back when he
agreed with my point -- the decision isn't whimsical: A Debian
developer is required to apply DFSG to the decision, and that decision
is subject if necessary to correction via others' NMUs, etc.
[1] Some software doesn't get accepted for even the non-free collection
because it's judged to be not possible for Debian to lawfully
redistribute, e.g., on account of licence conflict. That could likewise
happen to documentation, in theory.
