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

Re: Free v's Open Source software



On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 01:39:52PM -0700, Eric Richardson wrote:
> Steve Langasek wrote:

> >On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 02:31:33AM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:

> >>(*) IIRC there are no exceptions, and the sets are the same, but I
> >>don't know if every single OSI-approved license is used in Debian main.

> >There are OSI-approved licenses that are not considered DFSG-compliant.

> Which ones? This seems to be a slippery slope. All OSI should be 
> eligible otherwise perhaps the OSI definition is wrong. Isn't it good 
> enough to say that OSI, Free and 'list here' are fine?

It's not a question of definitions, it's a question of certification.
The OSI Open Source definition is of course quite close to the DFSG;
however, actual OSI endorsement is granted by a different group of
"judges" than DFSG-compliance.  OSI may be right, Debian may be right --
doesn't matter; in the real world, we've come to different conclusions
about licenses in the past, may come to different conclusions in the
future, and because of these human judgement factors, can't make a
blanket statement that "all OSI-approved licenses are DFSG-compliant".

One such OSI-approved license that I do not consider DFSG-compliant:

   <http://www.opensource.org/licenses/apsl.php>

vs.

   <http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/debian-legal-200109/msg00097.html>


> What about the bios and hardware etc. as they aren't free? Things are 
> gray, not black and white. The intent of a statement should be fine 
> unless some legal determination is made that restricts the community 
> that wants to follow the law.

Since we're talking about what licenses are permitted in main, I'm not
sure how objects that one can never store on an FTP server enter into the
discussion. :)

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: pgp3n6jPJE37V.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: