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

Re: sunset clauses

On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 05:23:15PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>     >> 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
> 1.

I think I would agree with you if we're talking about something like KDE
or nessus, but not in the case of apt.

Apt got a sunset clause as a generous move to help somebodye ELSE out
with THEIR license problem.  Do you perceive that as illegitimate, or as
rendering apt non-DFSG-free?

If not, then perhaps we have found a dividing line that distinguishes
acceptable uses of sunset clauses from unacceptable ones.

G. Branden Robinson                |
Debian GNU/Linux                   |       Extra territorium jus dicenti
branden@debian.org                 |       impune non paretur.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpqsLuY1qDWM.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: