Hello! I see there's (at last) some activity on bug #388141 [1]. I am happy to see that, but I personally think it's going in a slightly wrong direction... :-(
First of all, a brief summary of bug #238245 [2] and of bug #388141 [1] (which started as a clone of #238245 [2]), for debian-legal readers. Anyone who is interested in all the details is invited to (re-)read the complete (long) bug logs. [1] http://bugs.debian.org/388141 [2] http://bugs.debian.org/238245 The issue is two-fold: firstly, the official Debian web site is licensed [3] under the terms of the OPL [4] and therefore fails to comply with the DFSG. Secondly, the web site claims [3] to be copyrighted by SPI, while it's not [5]. [3] http://www.debian.org/license [4] http://bugs.debian.org/238245#40 [5] http://bugs.debian.org/238245#58 End of summary. Recent discussions on bug #388141 [1] (starting at message #206), include a plan to ask for copyright assignments to SPI from all future and (then) past contributors. I think this is the wrong approach. The Debian Project does *not* ask for copyright transfers for anything, AFAICT. Not even for the packaging. Why should a contributor trust SPI to always take the Right™ licensing decisions in the future for his/her contributions? Moreover, copyright assignment is much more difficult from a legal standpoint, may require dead-tree paperwork and may be problematic for some contributors. I acknowledge that the current plan includes the possibility of exceptions for those not willing to assign their copyright, but, then, why asking at all? A way of handling these cases must be devised anyway. That way is asking for re-licensing consent. Let's do so for everybody! I personally think the appropriate plan to address the issue is therefore doing the following actions (all of them, in the specified order!): (A) Decide a set of licenses for the Debian web site. A default for GNU GPL v2, with the Expat/MIT being allowed (for any contributor who wants to use a more permissive license) seems to be the most reasonable proposal [6] [6] http://bugs.debian.org/388141#199 (B) Track down all contributors to the web site, contact them and ask them to agree to the re-licensing of their past contributions (under the GNU GPL v2 or, if they so wish, under the Expat/MIT). Please note that MJ Ray [7] and Bradley M. Kuhn [8] have offered help with this: I hope they are still willing to get involved... [7] http://bugs.debian.org/238245#138 [8] http://bugs.debian.org/238245#197 (C) Change the copyright notice for the web pages, to read "Copyright (c) 1997-<present> by Debian WWW authors" and so that it says the license is GNU GPL v2, except where noted that the license is Expat The proposed wml tags may be used to keep track of copyright holders of the various web pages (D) Future contributions will be accepted only if licensed under terms compatible with one of the allowed licenses I hope this plan makes sense to you, and may help in finally solving this issue. Thanks a lot for your time and for taking care of this bug. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgpxNNptWCSGH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
