Frederic Bonnard <fre...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes: > I'm wondering if an agreement meets the DFSG during the packaging > process of a library called libvecpf.
Thanks for raising this while doing the packaging work, it is important to get this right. > It's under GPLv2.1+ but there are 2 additional files which are > agreements. > Depending if you are an individual contributor or a corporate one : > - https://github.com/Libvecpf/libvecpf/blob/master/ICLA.txt > - https://github.com/Libvecpf/libvecpf/blob/master/CCLA.txt There is no “GPLv2.1”. Do you mean “GNU GPLv2”, or something else? In your assessment, are those additional “agreement” files binding on any recipient of the work, to modify and/or redistribute the work or exercise any other DFSG freedom? > I see amongst some problems with : > - contributor must fill, sign and send the agreement > - reveal his identity > - notify the Libvecpf Maintainer of any facts or circumstances of which You > become aware that would make these representations inaccurate in any > respect. If I understand correctly, failure to meet any of those requirements does not affect the recipient's freedom to exercise DFSG freedoms. (They are requirements that the maintainer imposes on *accepting* changes into the official repository, if I read correctly.) But I could be wrong. What do you think causes a DFSG problem? -- \ “This sentence contradicts itself — no actually it doesn't.” | `\ —Douglas Hofstadter | _o__) | Ben Finney
