On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:18:00 +0100 A Mennucc wrote: > hi d-legal, Hi! :) [...] > Some artwork is covered by the attached Design Science License. > > Is it fine to include that stuff in the package and upload? > (I would say yes, but you may have a more informed opinion). The DSL has already been discussed on d-l, back in 2000: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2000/07/msg00079.html No DFSG-freeness issues were found at the time. Unfortunately the license text was not fully quoted in that thread and the cited URL does not seem to be valid any longer. As a consequence, it's really hard to know if the license text discussed in that past thread is identical to the one we are discussing now, or differs. This is one of the primary reasons behind the recommendation to always fully quote the license text in a license analysis thread! Thanks for doing so! Oh well, back to the current discussion, then. I see one possible issue with this license: clause 3(a) states | (a) The Source Data is included in the same distribution, distributed | under the terms of this License; or while the other two options are non-free (just as in the GNU GPL). Option (a) seems to force distributors of the Object Form to *include* Source Data, rather than to *accompany* it with Source Data (compare with GNU GPL v2, clause 3a). Does this mean that Source Data for DSL'ed works *must* be shipped in Debian binary packages, as well as in Debian source packages? If this is the case, does this restriction comply with the DFSG? It sounds really unpractical at best. My standardized disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html New! Version 0.6 available! What? See for yourself! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpwMUWYOqp0o.pgp
Description: PGP signature