Brian Ristuccia said: > I think it was intended for this clause to be nonbinding "requested and > strongly recommended" - but not required. I think it's a good > recommendation. But you're right - it's not always possible to meet this > term with ease (or at all) and that's why it's best left as a > recommendation, not a requirement. We'll leave it as a recommendation not a requirement then. So it would be "please do this, but if you cannot then you're still ok under the license."
Now about the two options (Section VI) I'm thinking that we don't need either of them. Certainly option B would cause problems as I think it would mean it is not DFSG-free. Actually A would probably make it not DFSG-free too. So... Is the Debian legal people, Debian webmasters and SPI board happy with replacing the web pages with something like: Copyright (c) 1997- 2000 by SPI Inc. This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Open Publication License, Draft v1.0 or later (the latest version is presently available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/). I saw someone mentioning the translators. AFAIK they're part of the webmaster team, or at the very least hand over the copyright of the web pages to SPI Inc. so any modifications are internal to the group (or the umbrella organisation). It might be different if, say, a LUG did it outside of Debian, but in that case we probably would want them to say that it was an unoffical translation and the real web pages are found at www.debian.org Thankyou for those who have commented. - Craig -- Craig Small VK2XLZ, PGP: AD 8D D8 63 6E BF C3 C7 47 41 B1 A2 1F 46 EC 90 Eye-Net Consulting http://www.eye-net.com.au/ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> MIEEE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Debian developer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
