Re: Draft new DFSG - r1.4
"Tony" == Tony Finch <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Tony> I think the major application that this will affect is Apache
Tony> -- the Apache Group has control of the licence.
It also affects ispell, the larger Apache modules, and everything with
ssleay support (mutt-i etc.), if we assume this was carefully worded
not to apply to University of California, Berkeley based software.
But personally I find this exception-within-an-exception distasful.
We're going to say the Apache 1.3.3 is free and 1.3.4 is not, even
though both have the EXACT same license Apache has had for years? And
the next release of pmake will be considered non-free? And if down
the road UCB helps maintain sendmail, bind, or xfree86, those will
suddenly be non-free too?
The advertising clause, though distasteful, affects very few people
and doesn't make the software less free to use. It makes it less free
to mention by name in your corporate press releases, which until now
no one has claimed is an essential feature of free software (or Open
Perhaps I'm biased here, since I maintain Apache and a number of
packages related to it. But I'm also a Debian CD vendor, so this
supposedly "hurts" me -- and I still say such software should stay in
This issue aside, the new DFSG seems more suited to be a Policy manual
chapter than to be the guiding statement of principles for the
Project, especially given its complexity, legalistic tone (a glossary
is needed?) and two-faced nature.
--------------------- PGP E4 70 6E 59 80 6A F5 78 63 32 BC FB 7A 08 53 4C
__ _ Debian GNU Johnie Ingram <email@example.com> mm mm
/ /(_)_ __ _ ___ __ "netgod" irc.debian.org mm mm
/ / | | '_ \| | | \ \/ / m m m
/ /__| | | | | |_| |> < Yes, I'm Linus, and I am your God. mm mm
\____/_|_| |_|\__,_/_/\_\ -- Linus, keynote address, Expo 98 GO BLUE