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>