On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 03:49:34AM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > Please take a look and comment. The pages are currently not linked nor > mentioned on the rest of the website. I will add this after giving you > some time for feedback and improval suggestions.
The following is presented only as suggestions for your consideration. The original text is presented first with suggestions below. These site presents the opinion of the Debian project on how certain licenses meet the standards set by the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). Most of these opinions were formed in discussions on the debian-legal mailing list. If you have questions or comments about one of these license summaries, please contact the list. - s/These site/This site - s/one of these/any of these/ - "please contact the list", without a link/name could possibly be confusing, maybe more helpful would be (not in any order): * Change "the list" to a "mailto:"; link *OR* * Change "the list" to "debian-legal mailing list" *OR* * Remove the last sentence and add to the end of the previous one; ", which you may contact if you have questions or comments about these license summaries." -- Then, maybe "contact" could be a "mailto:"; link. Licenses are normally classified into three categories. There are free licenses, non-free licenses and licenses that don't allow redistribution. - s/licenses that don't allow redistribution/non-redistributable licenses/ (NOTE: The only reason for the change is to be consistence with the categories specified lower on the page.) Free licenses do fulfill all requirements defined by the DFSG. If you're in doubt how to interpret the DFSG, you should check the DFSG FAQ that answers some common questions about licenses and how to classify them. To be licensed under a free license is a necessary (but not sufficent) criteria for a piece of software to be included in Debian. Examples for free licenses are the GNU General Public License, the Artistic license and BSD style licenses. - s/do fulfill/meet/ - s/If you're in doubt how to interpret/For help with interpreting/ *OR* s/doubt how to/doubt about how to/ - s/sufficent/sufficient/ # Depends on the next suggestion. - The sentence ...(but not sufficent)... may leave the reader wondering what is not sufficent. Maybe replace that sentence with: Some licenses that are considered free by others, may not have all of the freedoms that are necessary to be considered free by Debian. - s/Examples for/Examples of/ # Question: Are all the "BSD style licenses" free? Non-Free licenses fail one or more criteria set by the DFSG. They do allow however at least the unlimited non-commercial redistribution of the licensed software. Examples are licenses that restrict commercial use of the software or licenses that make restrictions on modifications. - Add before the last sentence (before Examples): Debian provides infrastructure for certain non-free packages. Although not part of the Debian system, these packages are provided as a benefit to our users (see ?5 of our Social Contract). We make a difference betweem non-free licenses and licenses that don't allow unlimited non-commercial redistribution because we sometimes distribute non-free software through our mirrors if this serves our users (see ?5 of our Social Contract), even if it can't be a part of the Debian distribution. Some licenses doesn't even allow this, so we put them in an extra category. - s/betweem/between/ # Depends on suggestion below - Change "extra" to "Non-redistributable" and provide a link to: http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/byclass#non-dist - Move the non-free explanation to the non-free paragraph. - Also replace the paragraph with the following: Non-redistributable licenses in addition to being non-free, also don't allow unlimited non-commercial redistribution. This category also includes licenses that are silent regarding rights of redistribution. In other words, if the license does not specifically grant the right to redistribute, the assumption is that no rights are granted. Debian does not support non-redistributable software and the licenses do not grant permission for distribution needed by the Debian mirror network. NOTE: The use of the next suggestion would depend on your choices regarding the suggestions above. - Change the last sentence (Some licenses...) to: Some licenses either, don't allow redistribution or may not specify that redistribution is permitted. Such licenses are included in the non-redistributable category. Similar lists are maintained by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) and the Open Source Initiative (OSI). - Add: Please note however, that the Debian project uses different criteria to judge the categorization of licenses, as shown in the following lists. We provide three lists that differ in how they are sorted: * chronological ordered list, sorted after the date of the summary. - change to: chronological list, sorted by the date of the summary. * alphabetical ordered list, sorted by the name of the license. - Change to: alphabetical list, sorted by the name of the license. * list ordered after classification, alphabetical lists of the licenses, sorted by their classification. - Change to: classification list, sorted alphabetically within each classification. You can go directly to the lists of free, non-free and non-redistributable licenses. - IMHO it would be better if that sentence didn't start a new line. In other words, just normal spacing as in a paragraph. -- Doug Jensen
