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

Re: sunset clauses

> > 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.

On Wed, 15 May 2002, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I think I would agree with you if we're talking about something like KDE
> or nessus, but not in the case of apt.

What?  This seems an odd position - apt can go into main with a license 
that would keep KDE out?  

> 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?

I'm afraid I haven't read the apt license.  Could you summarize the sunset 
clause in it?

"rendering apt non-DFSG-free" is not what anyone is claiming.  "failing to
make Debian's packaging of apt DFSG-free" is how I might phrase it.  I'd
certainly not claim that a sunset clause makes something unfree.  I DO
claim that such a clause makes it as free as the intersection of the
licenses rather than the union of them.

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

I propose this line:  If our packaging (aka derived work including any
linking we do) is DFSG-free both before and after the sunset, then we
accept it into main.

My concern is to prevent us creating a Debian release that is 
non-distributable after some future date.  
Mark Rafn    dagon@dagon.net    <http://www.dagon.net/>  

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

Reply to: