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

Re: FYI: Zope Public License 1.1 vague, contradictory, and not DFSG-free

On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 07:02:58AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Branden is concerned about the 'must be packaged separately' language.

Yes, and like most of the other hacks the author of this license cobbled
onto the BSD terms, what is meant by "packaged" is not specified

Maybe it means what Debian means when we use the term.  Maybe it doesn't.

> What I'll point out is that the remainder of the paragraph specifies that
> as long as we clearly label our package as unofficial, we don't have
> to worry much about how clearly separated our patches are.

That's what I think the author means to say; that isn't what the license
actually says.  It says "Modifications must be packaged separately."

Debian has rejected well-meaning but poorly worded licenses in the past,
and in some cases this has led to rewording of licenses for greater
clarity, and sometimes even made them DFSG-free.  The vim license
springs to mind.  It was a real borderline case, but Bram modified the
license to make it clearly compliant with the DFSG, and everyone is

I continue to feel that this license is dangerously vague, and I
reiterate my offer to work with the Zope Corporation, or Digital
Creations, or whoever is in charge of it to clean it up, if Gregor is
agreeable to that proposal.  Since it's his package I think it's only
correct if I regard him as the proper liaison with upstream.

G. Branden Robinson                |     When I die I want to go peacefully
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     in my sleep like my ol' Grand
branden@debian.org                 |     Dad...not screaming in terror like
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |     his passengers.

Attachment: pgpDRRpgfPUQp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: