Re: sunset clauses
>>>>> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:
>> Imagine software that is GPL, and has a time-limited additional
>> right to distribute when linked with OpenSSL.
Branden> Yes, and in fact I would advocate just such an action.
>> The software itself is free. No question. It would be free
>> under pure GPL, so it's free both before and after the sunset.
Branden> Yes.
>> The derivative work that is the software linked with OpenSSL is
>> not free IMO. It has a license that expires. It's free before
>> sunset, unlawful to distrubute after the exception expires.
Branden> But this is only due to factors outside that software's
Branden> control. People shouldn't write GPL'ed applications that
Branden> use GPL-incompatible code in the first place. Debian has
Branden> no license to distribute it when they do; that's why we
Branden> didn't ship KDE. A sunset clause such as the one I'm
Branden> talking about *does* make it possible for Debian and
Branden> anyone else to distribute such a piece of software
Branden> freely.
I'm not sure I agree. I certainly think software legal to distribute
only because of a sunset clause cannot go in main. As I argued in my
previous message, I believe it violates the implicit assumption that
you will have the right to continue distributing the software in DFSG
1.
I also think such software cannot go in non-free either, because it
creates a significant headache for Debian managing old releases. But
I guess that's an issue for ftpmaster and I shouldn't complain about
how they decide to run the non-free archive.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: