On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 09:40:17 -0700 Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Hi Javier,
Hi Jonathan, hi Javier!
Thanks to you both for following up on this issue.
Javier Fernandez-Sanguino wrote:
[...]Thanks for the updated information.
I would rather wait for the copyright notice in each of these pages to change before I change debian/copyright and update the status. Right
now all of them point to the boilerplate page http://www.debian.org/license which still mentions that OPL is the current license for all the documents previous to January 25th, 2012.
Hopefully, when #388141 is resolved for all documents we will be
able to update debian/copyright and close this bug too.
That's fine with me. I mostly meant to give a summary for Francesco
of the current status of these documents. I also agree with you that
the /licenses page online should be updated when their license status
is clear, not just doc-debian's copyright file.
Well, even though the issue with doc-debian is definitely part of the
larger issue with the official Debian website (www.debian.org), I think
that solving the part that affects doc-debian (a package shipped in
Debian main, as I said!) should be carried on at a higher priority.
I think that the copyright holders for the documents shipped in
doc-debian should be tracked down and contacted, in order to ask
(persuade) them to agree to the re-licensing under the disjunction
"Expat or GPL-2+" (as is being done, I hope!, for the rest of www.debian.org).
The collected "OK" answers should of course be contributed to the www.debian.org re-licensing effort.
I hope this can be done in the short term.
Thanks a lot for taking this issue seriously!
Bye.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 491 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 132:54:54 |
Calls: | 9,690 |
Files: | 13,728 |
Messages: | 6,177,733 |