On 05/21/2013 03:15 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: > On 2013-05-21 09:59, Jakub Wilk wrote: >> * Scott Kitterman <sc...@kitterman.com>, 2013-05-21, 06:20: >>>> What do you mean by "non-free content"? >>> The reporter specified the bug report was covered by non-free license. >> >> Oh come on. Sure, it's silly to "release" a bug report under a >> non-free license. But if we suddenly start caring about bug report >> licences, then we might as well shut down the whole BTS, as the vast >> majority of submissions don't come with any license at all. > > I am not a laywer, but this is my opinion. Under most definitions of > copyright, a bug report's copyright belongs to its author. We host them > in the BTS at their request, so I don't believe we need any further > license. However if a poster asked to have their material removed, I > think we'd be obligated to remove it.
For clarity: the original poster of #709138 asked no such thing; the
poster merely asserted a CC BY-NC license in the .sig of their e-mail.
Despite the fact that i find the NC clause troublingly vague (and
undoubtably non-dfsg-free), CC BY-NC is clearly no worse than the
overwhelming majority of bug reports which come with no license
information at all.
Debian does not demand that bug reports themselves be DFSG-free, and
closing a bug report due to non-DFSG-free licensing of the bug report
itself seems silly to me. Don't we want to fix bugs? how can we do
that if we don't know about or acknowledge them?
let's support our users and appreciate them when they report problems;
this is how debian gets better.
Thank you Jakub for identifying the technical problem that needed fixing
here. :)
--dkg
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Python-modules-team mailing list Python-modules-team@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/python-modules-team
