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 exception. -- 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