On Sun, 08 Sep 2013 14:20:44 +0200 Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Hi Francesco,
Hi Jonas, nice to read you! :-) > > Quoting Francesco Poli (wintermute) (2013-09-08 11:36:16) > > > | Files: slidy/* > > | Copyright: 2005-2010, W3C (MIT, ERCIM, Keio) > > | License: W3C-Document and W3C-Software > > > > which are released under the terms of this "W3C-Document" license: > > As the License shortnames indicate, I interprete it as being > dual-licensing. Please take into account that I based my bug report on the debian/copyright file, assuming it accurately represents the current content of the package. As far as I understand the machine-readable debian/copyright file specification [1], "L_A and L_B" means that you must comply with both license L_A and license L_B (perhaps because the work incorporates parts under L_A and parts under L_B, or maybe because the work is explicitly licensed under the conjunction of the two sets of terms). [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/#license-syntax In order to describe a dual-licensing situation (where the recipient may choose to comply with one of the two licenses, being allowed to disregard the other one), the machine-readable debian/copyright file should say "L_A or L_B". > Do you disagree with that interpretation, or do both > licenses in your opinion fail DFSG? The other license ("W3C-Software") looks basically acceptable to me. The point is that I thought recipients had to comply with both licenses at the same time ("W3C-Document and W3C-Software"). If you know that the files under consideration are instead dual-licensed, then please fix the debian/copyright file ("W3C-Document or W3C-Software"). On the other hand, if the files are indeed licensed under the conjunction of the two licenses, then please try to adopt one of the two solutions I mentioned in the original bug report. In case of doubt, please get in touch with the copyright holders of the files and ask for a clarification on the licensing status ("do we have to comply with one of the two licenses, at our choice, or do we have to comply with both?"). > > Thanks for caring so strongly about licensing. Much appreciated! I am glad you appreciate it, really. Thanks for telling me explicitly. And thanks for taking this issue seriously. -- 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
pgpxkffW6_z2M.pgp
Description: PGP signature
