[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Draft new DFSG - r1.4

Ian Jackson <ian@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> 5. Restrictions due to law
> (a) If in a particular jurisdiction any of the activities mentioned in
> section 1 are restricted by law, then the work is not DFSG-free in
> that jurisdiction.  However, legal restrictions which would apply to
> any work which has the same general nature as the work in question do
> not prevent a work from being DFSG-free.
> (b) A work is still DFSG-free in other jurisdictions, provided that
> those who control (directly or indirectly) the work and the conditions
> under which it is distributed, do not have the power to lift the
> restrictions other than by changing the nature of the work, and
> express a desire that the legal restrictions be lifted.
> (c) In the case of restrictions due to patents, the work can in any
> case not be DFSG-free if any of those who control the work and the
> conditions under which it is distributed are software patent
> aggressors.

     The DFSG is, and should remain, solely about the copyright and
license provisions.  If the license of a work is fully compliant with
the DFSG, the work is DFSG-free.  The author, through his choice of
license, determines the DFSG-freeness of his work.   

     The laws of one or more countries may restrict where and how
Debian may distribute some works, but DFSG-freeness is not affected
by these laws.   

     If any of the packages now in the non-us section have DFSG
compliant licenses, they should be considered part of the main debian
distribution, even if some foolish laws restrict their use or

  |_)  _  |_       Robert D. Hilliard    <hilliard@flinet.com>
  |_) (_) |_)      Palm City, FL  USA    PGP Key ID: A8E40EB9

Reply to: