Re: more tolerant licensing for Debian infrastructure
Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
> [was Re: Debian based GNU/Solaris: pilot program]
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Remember that dpkg is GPLed, so there's a slightly awkward bootstrapping
> This reminds me of an issue which I feel needs change but I've never
> felt worked up enough to do anything about.
> Why do programs written specifically for Debian such as dpkg or apt,
> have a license which is not compatible with some other DFSG-compliant
> licenses? I understand we like the GPL but the DFSG is laxer in some
> respects. And the spirit of Debian is the DFSG not the GPL.
Allow me to suggest alternatively that perhaps the spirit of Debian is
the GPL (as evidenced that our core components are GPL'ed) , but because
there is so much useful free software out there that is not GPL'ed (and
is indeed more permissive to developers than the GPL) we needed some
guidelines for what could be accepted and what couldn't. Hence, the DFSG.
I usually have a GPG digital signature included as an attachment.
See http://www.gnupg.org/ for info about these digital signatures.