Re: Draft new DFSG
Joseph Carter <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> * The DFSG2 proposal is worded in a way that would cause a lot of software
> currently in main to no longer be there. This is going to
> seriously annoy both upstream authors and maintainers of those
It would be useful if someone could substantiate this assertion by
producing a list of the pieces of software affected.
> * It depreciates the BSD advertising clause. Yes that is annoying,
> but look at what uses it! This means among other things Apache and
> of course the BSD utils.
The BSD utils will not be affected by the proposed DFSG clause as
written, as the copyright holders (The Regents of the University of
California.) aren't making new releases.
Apache is potentially more of a problem as it has frequent current
releases. Has anyone contacted the Apache Group to ask about their
position on the advertizing clause?
> There are valid reasons a company might release their code under
> BSD or other license with something like the advertising clause.
> Changing the DFSG like this is essentially telling them we don't
> want their software.
Do you think that anyone advertizing CDs of Debian should be required
to have a page or three of acknowledgements for the various pieces of
BSD-licensed software found on the CD?