Re: Is the Nokia Open Source License DFSG compliant?
Kevin Rosenberg <email@example.com> wrote:
> I believe this license is DFSG compliant, Sections 3.1 and 3.2 are
> similar to some GPL sections. I wonder about section 3.6 as well.
The one thing that worries me is
> 3.2 Availability of Source Code.
> Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be
> made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License
> either on the same media as an Executable version or via an accepted
> Electronic Distribution Mechanism to anyone to whom you made an
> Executable version available; and if made available via Electronic
> Distribution Mechanism, must remain available for at least twelve
> (12) months after the date it initially became available, or at
> least six (6) months after a subsequent version of that particular
> Modification has been made available to such recipients. You are
> responsible for ensuring that the Source Code version remains
> available even if the Electronic Distribution Mechanism is
> maintained by a third party.
So if Debian puts the source and binaries up on its ftp site, it is
required to keep the source there for at least 12 months, and at least
6 months after a particular version. We can speculate about whether
this is DFSG-free or not, but it certainly can't be distributed by
Debian. Debian does not keep around the source to all of the old
versions for at least six months.
Also, in relation to the patent stuff. There was a similar kind of
problem in an Intel driver license
Basically, if there was a patent that applied to the Intel driver,
then the whole thing wouldn't be GPL incompatible (which is a problem,
since the driver links into the kernel). Intel has a lot of patents,
but the conclusion I got from the discussion was that we don't worry
unless they start enforcing patents related to the driver. This is
basically what Andrew Suffield is saying.