Re: sunset clauses
On Wed, 15 May 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Please respect my mail headers:
> Mail-Copies-To: nobody
> X-No-CC: I subscribe to this list; do not CC me on replies.
> Do you read this mailing this? I just posted it today.
>
> Also, what is so difficult about typing "pager
> /usr/share/doc/apt/copyright"?
Apologies on both counts. I normally send only to the list unless a
poster requests a copy, but my finger slipped this time. I was
unfortunately distant from any Debian install when I responded. Now
rectified ;)
> > What? This seems an odd position - apt can go into main with a license
> > that would keep KDE out?
>
> As strange as it seems, yes; someone else's package can render your own
> un-redistributable. That is a property of the GNU GPL.
I phrased my question incompletely. If apt and kde had the same linkage
dependencies on Qt, and had the same license, would you accept apt into
main and not kde?
Apt's license didn't make apt non-free because Debian didn't use it in any
way that was incompatible with either license (the pre- or post-sunset
license).
> > > 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?
Not at all. But it also didn't actually make any other package free.
That other package was free before 20001115 and non-free after the date,
and therefore not allowed in main.
> Only one license applies to APT; the GNU GPL.
Then we're golden. Apt is distributable before and after it's sunset
date, and is free.
> GPL'ed application A
> /\
> / \
> / \
> / \
> GPL'ed library B GPL-incompatible library C
> A license addition to B that grants permission for usage with C, even
> with a sunset clause, does not impact the re-distributability of B. It
> does impact the distributability of A.
Agreed. A and B both need additional rights granted in order for A to be
distributable.
> I therefore agree with your premise, but not your conclusion: if a
> Debian package is DFSG-free regardless of whether certain time-limited
> portions of its license are in force, then the package is DFSG-free.
The other half of this argument is the important one. If a package is
non-free in any time-limited portion of it's license, then it's not
DFSG-free.
Apt is free both before and after, so it's free.
I apparently misunderstood the original recommendation to add an
additional right with a sunset clause. I thought there was a package that
was going to be made free by adding an OpenSSL exception, and that you
were recommending this exception be time-limited. IMO, that wouldn't make
it free.
I think we agree on these points:
1) A package's freedom must be evaluated as a combination of it's own
license and the licenses of anything it links to.
2)A dual-license is as free as the union of the licenses, but a
time-limited license is as free as the intersection of the before and
after licenses.
A time-limited exemption can not make a package free, NOR can it make a
package that links to it free. Time-limited licenses may be handy for
political reasons in their effect on software use outside Debian, but
Debian should never include (even in non-free IMO) a package that we
couldn't include without the time-limited clause.
Does this make sense? I'm afraid I still don't understand your Nessus
recommendation. If an exemption is required to allow us to
package/distribute Nessus, that exemption must be perpetual or we
shouldn't distribute it (even if it's legal to do so for some amount of
time).
--
Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: