Frank Lichtenheld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I just completed the first version of these pages (loosly based on the
pages of the security team), put them online and added a first
license, OPL, based on the summary on debian-legal by Jeremy
Hankins. You can find these pages on
http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ (and every other mirror of
course).
Possibly something on the front page explaining the differences between
the three categories might be useful? Maybe an introduction along the
lines of
These site presents the opinion of the Debian project on how certain
licenses meet the standards set by the Debian Free Software Guidelines
(DFSG), which describe the freedoms Debian requires for its users. We
classify licenses as Free if they meet these standards [explanation why
free is good], Non-Free if the software can be redistributed under
certain conditions [explanation why this is bad], and non-distributable,
if the license is inconsistent, or forbids redistribution [something
about non-redistributable being bad]. [Statement about only Debian
servers only distributing free and non-free software, carefully worded
so as to stress that non-free is not part of the Debian distribution]
[pointer to legal FAQ]
(but written in more concise, fluent English) might be helpful, as it is
likely that this page will become many people's first encounter with
debian-legal, and maybe even Debian (just as
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html is many people's first
encounter with the FSF). As Debian's opinions on freeness are well-know
and respected, a page like this is likely to pull in a lot of people who
are only familiar with [controversial license of the week], and not
necessarily Debian jargon.
As an aside, I expected the links in '_free licenses_, _non-free
licenses_, and _licenses that don't allow redistribution_' to link to
definitions of the categories (rather than the list of licenses); maybe
others might also make the same mistake.
--
Lewis Jardine
IANAL IANADD
