Larry, As author of the AFL v3.0, can you comment on some concerns raised about it by Francesco Poli at https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2012/09/msg00082.html ?
Francesco's message is somewhat long, so here is the most important concern. (I read the relevant section of your book, http://rosenlaw.com/pdf-files/Rosen_Ch09.pdf, which by the way is impressively clear and detailed, but it doesn't appear to address this question.) | 9) [...] If You distribute or communicate copies of the Original | Work or a Derivative Work, You must make a reasonable effort | under the circumstances to obtain the express assent of | recipients to the terms of this License. The software in question is in the Debian archive, where it can be downloaded manually, using a web browser or other http client, or automatically, using various client tools to install and update a Debian system (commonly apt-get, aptitude, or synaptic). These tools can be run interactively or noninteractively. The same software and processes also exist in Ubuntu, but for the purpose of this email I don't care about Ubuntu, they can look after their own interests. Our question is, what constitutes "reasonable under the circumstances"? Would this mean that the Debian mirror sites would be required to include click-through license confirmation pages before you could download certain files? Would it mean that OS updater client apps would need to implement license confirmation dialogs before performing certain updates? To put this in perspective, the AFL 3.0 software I'm talking about is around 70 kB, which is around 1 millionth of 1 percent of the Debian archive. As such, I can pretty much guarantee that license dialogs and click-through pages are NOT going to happen. Would this then mean it is inappropriate for Debian to distribute AFL-v3.0-licensed content? Thanks, Peter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
