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

Re: is this DFSG?

martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> [2002.09.22.1632 +0200]:
> > Please contact the author to change that. DFSG is not a license, but a
> > set of conditions a license should meet so that the program
> > distributed with such license can be part of Debian.
> I am the author ;^>
> > You can't license code "under the DFSG". You can do it under GPL, BSD,
> > or put the code under into public domain.
> So it's not okay?

I don't know, but If I was ftpmaster I would reject it for being incoherent.

> I'll simply GPL it then. But DFSG is more than GPL,
> even though it's not a license, right?

If you mean the GPL license meets DFSG but it's not the only one that
does, yes, of course. Anyway, DFSG says:

 10. Example Licenses

     The "GPL", "BSD", and "Artistic" licenses are examples of licenses that
     we consider "free".

This point was added so that people could easily choose among those
licenses as a "safe bet" to be DFSG-compliant. We prefer that people
do not try to reinvent the wheel as far as licensing is concerned.

Reply to: