[Pkg-haskell-maintainers] Bug#722134: Bug#722134: pandoc: includes unmodifiable documents

[Francesco Poli]

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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-haskell-maintainers/attachments/20130908/c78a3831/attachment.sig>