Re: Apple license and LGPL
Francesco Poli <frx@firenze.linux.it> wrote:
> I don't think the APSL 2.0 is acceptable for main.
[...]
> Please see the following thread
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00545.html
> for all the details.
So, to summarise:
- it contaminates other software (DFSG 9) in patent-afflicted places,
and/or discriminates against hardware patent holders (DFSG 5);
- it has a choice of venue clause (DFSG 1 to some people);
- there's an open question about service provision;
- there's a potential supertrademark in clause 10;
but the blocker is probably:
- clause 2.3 looks like a practical problem for compiled code in
debian.
So I really hope that BOINC have a wholly-LGPL copy.
Hope that helps,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: