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

Re: sunset clauses

>>>>> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> writes:

    >> Imagine software that is GPL, and has a time-limited additional
    >> right to distribute when linked with OpenSSL.

    Branden> Yes, and in fact I would advocate just such an action.

    >> The software itself is free.  No question.  It would be free
    >> under pure GPL, so it's free both before and after the sunset.

    Branden> Yes.

    >> The derivative work that is the software linked with OpenSSL is
    >> not free IMO.  It has a license that expires.  It's free before
    >> sunset, unlawful to distrubute after the exception expires.

    Branden> But this is only due to factors outside that software's
    Branden> control.  People shouldn't write GPL'ed applications that
    Branden> use GPL-incompatible code in the first place.  Debian has
    Branden> no license to distribute it when they do; that's why we
    Branden> didn't ship KDE.  A sunset clause such as the one I'm
    Branden> talking about *does* make it possible for Debian and
    Branden> anyone else to distribute such a piece of software
    Branden> freely.

I'm not sure I agree.  I certainly think software legal to distribute
only because of a sunset clause cannot go in main.  As I argued in my
previous message, I believe it violates the implicit assumption that
you will have the right to continue distributing the software in DFSG

I also think such software cannot go in non-free either, because it
creates a significant headache for Debian managing old releases.  But
I guess that's an issue for ftpmaster and I shouldn't complain about
how they decide to run the non-free archive.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: