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: