On Tue, Sep 30, 2003 at 10:44:38AM -0700, Matt Taggart wrote: > I would like to know if the following license meets the DFSG and is ok for me > to upload the software to main(or if not, what needs to change). The software > is "lsblibchk", a tool for checking the LSB compliance of a runtime > environment or build environment. The source was downloaded from, > > ftp://ftp.freestandards.org/pub/lsb/test_suites/released-1.3.0/source/runtime/l > sblibchk-1.3.5.tar.gz > > and in the source tarball it contains two files, "License" and "Artistic". I > have attached them. It uses a standard artistic license but there are some > exceptions it makes which I'm concerned about. Please take a look and let me > know what you think. Leaving aside all the other issues, please ask upstream to replace the Artistic license with the Clarified Artistic license. The Artistic license is highly questionable as a free software license, due to poor wording. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature