Re: New CUPS license violates DFSG 6?
>>>>> "Wichert" == Wichert Akkerman <email@example.com> writes:
Wichert> Previously Peter Makholm wrote:
>> I think there are consensus for allowing positive
Wichert> There is? That would be a mighty slippery slope.
This has come up several times over the last two years. As far as I
can tell, no one has really presented a good argument why it shouldn't
be allowed to grant more freedom to some, provided that the license is
DFSG-free for all groups although possibly differently DFSG-free for
some groups. The discussions were mostly theoretical; I think this is
the first instance we're really likely to care about.
Consider that the copyright holder could clearly meet the DFSG by
making two releases of the same code, one under the GPL and one under
the GPL plus the apple exemption. If Debian used the GPL-only
release, it would clearly be DFSG free. If Debian objected to the
existance of the other release, it would be inconsistent; we allow
people to release software under arbitrary non-DFSG-free licenses
provided that the release we use is DFSG-free. Examples of this
include gs, db3, etc.
I think that demanding the upstream make a special GPL-only release
for Debian would serve no useful purpose and would subject us to
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com