Peter Samuel asked: > Would this then mean it is inappropriate for Debian to distribute > AFL-v3.0-licensed content?
Not to worry. What Debian already does is a "reasonable effort under the circumstances." Actually, Debian is super-reasonable in the FOSS context. The objective of that provision in AFL 3.0 was to require the sort of notice that courts always insist upon before licensees are bound to license terms. (This is because there must be some "manifestation of assent" to every contract.) However, there isn't a soul in the software world who doesn't know that Debian software is open source and that the actual software licenses are posted in all the appropriate places somewhere. That's because you are diligent and careful in what you distribute. As long as Debian continues its reasonable -- indeed commendable! -- procedures for the distribution of FOSS software, nobody on the AFL 3.0 bandwagon will complain. /Larry P.S. If anyone wants to know the historical antecedents of this provision, let's talk privately. Lawrence Rosen Rosenlaw & Einschlag, a technology law firm (www.rosenlaw.com) 3001 King Ranch Rd., Ukiah, CA 95482 Office: 707-485-1242 -----Original Message----- From: Peter Samuelson [mailto:pet...@debian.org] Sent: Monday, October 08, 2012 11:25 AM To: Larry Rosen Cc: Francesco Poli (wintermute); 689...@bugs.debian.org Subject: Question on AFL 3.0 section 9 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
