Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 07:46:11PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote: > > On 2003-11-17 18:46:53 +0000 Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> > > wrote: > > > > >I think this one's non-free too. It's certainly absurdly overbearing. > > > > I agree. Over-generalisation. Given that there seemed other problems, > > did any OSL-covered software get into main yet? > > elfutils FWIW, I am currently unable to update rpm to a new upstream version, because that new upstream version includes elfutils. And IIRC this list advised me that it was non-free when I brought it up. An excerpt of my mail to rpm's upstream: > I've been slowly working on getting rpm 4.2 into Debian, but have hit > quite a snag. I noticed that the elfutils are licenced using the Open > Software License. A routine query on the debian-legal list about this > license turned up a number of possible problems. The whole thread starts > here: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200306/msg00025.html > > The concerns brought up are: > > - Doesn't seem to explcitly allow binaries built from the source to be > distributed. > (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200306/msg00026.html) > - Seems to require (section 5) that if the code is used to provide a > service, it must be made available to all users of the service. FE putting > up a rpm-based query tool on the web would seem to require anyone who > uses it be provided with a copy of the code to elfutils. > (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200306/msg00028.html) > - The juristidiction limits (section 10) may be incompatable with the > GPL. Some think they're not DFSG free either, but there's no > consensus there. > (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200306/msg00043.html) > - There seems to be a definite consensus that it's not compatable with > the GPL, since it adds additional requirements, and the GPL does not > allow there to be additional requirements placed on software linked > to software licenced under it. > > Probably a bad summary, but I'm no lawyer. I can try to get > clarifications on any of these points if needed. I am left feeling very > uncomfortable about trying to put elfutils and the new rpm into Debian. No idea why elfutils is still in the archive given the above. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature