On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Curtis Hovey <curtis.hovey@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 10:47 +1300, Robert Collins wrote: >> >> The terms say this: >> >> >> >> "any content you upload to PPAs must be freely redistributable by >> Canonical, >> >> and released under a license permitting redistribution free of >> charge." >> >> >> >> > Will this be sufficient to comply with the PPA ToU? >> >> >> >> Yes, I believe that fits the requirements of the PPA terms of use. >> >> It'd be good to post a statement from the developer, or something >> >> similar, in the PPA description. I think you did something similar >> >> before. >> > >> > I think this is a mistake. I think not think the package meets the >> > criteria defined in >> http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines or >> > http://opensource.org/docs/osd >> > >> > I must be able to get the source and be permitted to modify it. >> >> Not according to the PPA Terms of Use : perhaps they are wrong and >> should be altered. But as they *stand*, no, thats not a requirement. > > I think there are some unstated issues at play here. The package in > question contain NC items. I think this violates items 6 "Must not > discriminate against persons, groups or against fields of endeavour" > > Can I upload this package to a project are a release file, or place it > as an attachment to a bug? We just had a long discussion the #launchpad channel about this. I think we have a disconnect between policies, and the PPA terms of use are more liberal than other policies suggest they should be (e.g. they don't require meeting the DFSG at all) I've initiated an internal discussion about this, and hope we'll come back to this thread in a few days. Cheers, Rob
This is the launchpad-users mailing list archive — see also the general help for Launchpad.net mailing lists.
(Formatted by MHonArc.)