Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: > If we want to distribute AFL3.0 code whose copyrightholder is not > Larry Rosen, we should probably send the copyrightholder an email > pointing to this interpretation, just so that they have the > opportunity to disagree now rather than later. (And include that > email and any reply in the copyright file.)
This is the case we have today with svn_load_dirs. Are you saying that we should not distribute svn_load_dirs until we get this clarification? I also must say that I am not convinced by Larry Rosen's explanation. Rosen's comment However, there isn't a soul in the software world who doesn't know that Debian software is open source and that the actual software licenses are posted in all the appropriate places somewhere. is manifestly not true. Lots of people in the software world have no idea what Debian is. Will I get into trouble if I sell someone a live CD without getting them to assent to the AFL? Sony is not the most benevolent of companies. Also, reading the license, I would expect it to require Debian to do what Sony, the current copyright holder, does in all of their own installers: require explicit assent via a clickwrap. Even judges would be familiar with that mechanism and not think it odd to require it. Finally, this comment That's because you are diligent and careful in what you distribute. makes it sound like if Debian starts getting sloppy in other areas then Debian will get in trouble. That feels wrong. Cheers, Walter Landry wlan...@caltech.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141104.164837.1940264495017064422.wlan...@caltech.edu
