On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 08:54:30AM +1100, Craig Small wrote: > 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/).
Speaking as both a member of the webmaster team AND a member of the SPI board (but to say I am speaking FOR either entity)... I don't like the "or later" clause... I don't like it with the GPL, either. It gives away too much control incase someone get's a wild bug and decides the OPL (or GPL) should prohibit armenians (as an example) from distributing the software... -- Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also. * http://benham.net/index.html <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <>< * * Debian: Software in the Public Interest: * * Project Secretary Treasurer * * Webmaster Team * * BTS Team siteROCK: * * Lintian Team Linux Infrastructure Engineer *
