On Tue, 13 Mar 2018, Nathan Cutler wrote: > On 03/13/2018 11:20 AM, Shengjing Zhu wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Nathan Cutler <ncutler@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > My goal at the time was to bring the license line in the spec file into > > > closer alignment with what is specified in COPYING. (Not sure how Debian > > > got > > > into the picture?) > > > > Debian needs to know the exact license. Without the version of CC > > license or a copy of the license in repo, we can't know whether it's > > DFSG free. > > > > I believe we have established that the exact doc license is unknown at this > time, since COPYING does not specify a version. Would it be enough to declare > in the mailing lists that the doc license version is declared to be, e.g., 3.0 > of CC-BY-SA and that if anyone disagrees they should speak up? (With the > understanding that, if they do, their stuff will be removed/rewritten.) > > Then it would be a simple matter of fixing the relevant lines in COPYING and > the packaging. I think a pull request making the change (with a summary of the history) and a message to this list soliciting comments is sufficient to resolve the ambiguity. Thanks! sage -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
