On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:23:15PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > >> 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 think I would agree with you if we're talking about something like KDE or nessus, but not in the case of apt. Apt got a sunset clause as a generous move to help somebodye ELSE out with THEIR license problem. Do you perceive that as illegitimate, or as rendering apt non-DFSG-free? If not, then perhaps we have found a dividing line that distinguishes acceptable uses of sunset clauses from unacceptable ones. -- G. Branden Robinson | Debian GNU/Linux | Extra territorium jus dicenti branden@debian.org | impune non paretur. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
pgpqsLuY1qDWM.pgp
Description: PGP signature