On Thu, Nov 14, 2002 at 02:26:03PM -0700, Eric Richardson wrote: >>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> > I can see the disagreements to the APSL and I personally don't like that > one all that well but this thread is not really a definitive answer or a > legal opinion either. If you want a legal opinion, retain a lawyer. Neither the OSI nor the debian-legal mailing list is presenting itself as a legal counsel, and the DFSG is not a legal document, so legal opinions aren't any more relevant anyway; and the only one you're likely to get out of a competent lawyer is that yes, licenses that have been certified as Open Source by the OSI are entitled to use the certification mark Open Source. The opinions of the debian-legal mailing list and ftpmaster are the definitive answer as far as package entry into the main archive is concerned. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgp4BeqWKpNh9.pgp
Description: PGP signature