Re: license requirements for a book to be in free section
On Fri, Jan 25, 2002 at 09:30:07PM +0100, Sunnanvind Fenderson wrote:
>
> Zack wrote:
> > Because debian is more "liberal" than FSF.
>
> The DFSG are possibly (though I'm not sure) even harsher than the FSF
No. There have been several cases in the past where we include and the FSF
exclude, and none I am aware of where it is the other way round (although
the GFDL might become such a case). Prominent example is the Artistic
License (older version), which we advertise as free software license, while
the FSF does not. It has worked with the Perl people on a revised Artistic
License that resolves the issue.
I have not yet checked if we have perl modules that are only under Artistic,
and not dual licensed under GPL, but we probably do.
It would really have made sense to just use the identical definition as the
FSF. Unfortunately, it didn't happen.
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org brinkmd@debian.org
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org marcus@gnu.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
Reply to: