On May 12, 2003 at 11:09AM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Our guidelines doesn't enforce being compatible with the GPL. There are > quite some packages in main that are not compatible with the GPL. Right. This is my wish, so I set Severity to "wishlist" already. > > I hope that the Debian WWW Pages will be clearly free > > The Debian WWW Pages _are_ free. The Open Publication License seems to have a problem. It is similar to the GNU FDL. In the debian-legal mailing list: On May 1, 2003 at 11:00AM -0700, Mark Rafn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The Open Publication License (http://opencontent.org/openpub/) > > v1.0 says: > > | The publisher > > | and author's names shall appear on all outer surfaces of the > > | book. On all outer surfaces of the book the original > > | publisher's name shall be as large as the title of the work and > > | cited as possessive with respect to the title. > > This would likely not be accepted for software. There's currently some > debate (heh) on whether documentation can be considered free with this > kind of restriction and whether there is a category of things that are > not software which Debian should distribute even if they're not free. > > My personal opinion is that this clause makes any work released under > this license non-free, and Debian shouldn't distribute it. On May 7, 2003 at 2:41AM -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, May 01, 2003 at 11:00:41AM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote: > > > | The publisher > > > | and author's names shall appear on all outer surfaces of the > > > | book. On all outer surfaces of the book the original > > > | publisher's name shall be as large as the title of the work and > > > | cited as possessive with respect to the title. > Hm. I think have said in the past that the OPL was Free if neither of > its license options were exercised. However the above quoted text from > the license is not conditional, and is part of all instantiations of the > OPL. > > I hereby retract any previous unequivocal statements I made about the > OPL's DFSG-freeness when neither license option is exercised. > > I am not yet willing to make a new unequivocal statement to replace it. > My thoughts on this issue will probably hitched to the GNU FDL Cover > Texts issue, but I need more time to reflect on the subject. -- Tatsuya Kinoshita
