On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:14:43PM +0300, Tommi Vainikainen wrote: > On 2005-08-12T16:03:20+0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Tommi Vainikainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's not worth relicensing from one set of non-free terms to > > another, unless you think the current licence is harder to > > understand than the longer CC licences, or something. With any > > luck, there'll be a free-software-ready CC soon. > > Hmm, maybe I should read CC licenses sometime. :-/ > > Also noticed that my report was rather technical (broken link), but > there has been for a long time other report #238245. > > Maybe this should be discussed with -legal and have some kind of > recommendation of good license? GNU GPL? > > >> Is this how hard to change? Now it says that SPI has all copyright. > > > > If that is true, I think it just needs DPL to ask SPI relicense. > > Well, I know as a translators that I've never assigned (in any formal > way) copyrights to SPI, but the web pages now clearly say that SPI has > copyright...
The copyright notice is wrong: SPI does not own the copyrights for the web site, so we can't change the license. I discussed these problems with Mako at Debconf4. We decided to ask the OPL author to release a new version of the license that was free. Mako also said that he'd discuss what the copyright notice should say with our lawyer. I haven't heard back on either issue, though. -- Matt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
