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

Re: sunset clauses

On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 07:50:19PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> It sounded like you were saying that a sunset clause would be
> appropriate to make Nessus which is currently not legal to distribute
> at all appropriate for Debian.
> I don't think that is reasonable exactly because it might not be
> distributable after the sun sets.

I agree.  I responded hastily at one point and did indeed give the
impression you received.  I was thinking in terms of license activism at
that point, and not in terms of utility to Debian.  I believe it would
be unfair to Debian's users to permit into main software that can render
itself de facto DFSG-unfree.

On reflection, it probably does not serve the goal I seek for license
holders to add OpenSSL permission exceptions to their GPL'ed software.
Doing so permits a long-term problem (the confusion of copyright and
non-copyright issues) to linger for the sake of short-term expediency.
However, that's a personal philosophical perspective of mine, and not
directly relevant to DFSG issues, which is why I didn't bring it up to
Easy Software Products when discussing their own OpenSSL permission

G. Branden Robinson                |    I have a truly elegant proof of the
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    above, but it is too long to fit
branden@debian.org                 |    into this .signature file.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpzbCKUvdRAs.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: