Andrew Saunders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > In his role as DPL, that same ftp-master (or "archive maintainer", if > you prefer) has endorsed [2] the Debian Creative Commons Workgroup > which opined [3] that the CCPL 3.0 is suitable for Debian main. [...]
I think [3]'s the opinion of the Workgroup leader. The Workgroup's last opinion was http://people.debian.org/~evan/draftresponse.txt [...] > Similarly, while MJ Ray argues [5] that packages under the Open Font > License making their way into main is proof of incompetence and/or > oversight on the ftp-masters' part, Misjudgements of a fairly vague twisty licence from ftp-masters, maintainers, debian-legal contributors and more. By the way, the quoted ftp-master/DPL also claims[6] 'The DFSG refers to copyright licensing' when it clearly doesn't refer to it even once. So is there the possibility of ftp-master misreading a licence? [6] - http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/02/msg00027.html > is it not possible that they > simply disagree with debian-legal's analysis and decided to let the > packages in on that basis, just as they did in the case of Sun's Java > licensing? Sun's Java is not yet in main and IIRC debian-legal wasn't asked before that same DPL fast-tracked it into non-free. The response of some was 'on your heads be it' because it was done by a few clearly-identified people and it's not part of debian. Otherwise, good summary. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
