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

Re: license check for tqsllib

On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 10:16:09AM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> I don't *like* it (to the point that I'm willing to spend a large number of
> my own hours, working to convince people to switch for a 3-clause variety),
> but there is enough software in the world that falls under it, and enough
> room to manuever in terms of whether it's even enforceable (or more than
> GPL-incompatible in the most technical of senses, and compatible in RMS's
> declaration of intent) that I'd really hate to see us drop everything that
> uses it, much as I'd hate to see us drop everything that could potentially
> have a patent on it - for much the same reason.

How about, once the 4.1.5 vote is done, we try to amend the DFSG to say
that no future software using the advertising clause will be permitted
into Debian?

We could do the same for the "discouraged" clause of DFSG 4 ("The
license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form
_only_ if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the
source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time.").

Ah, you've got my reformist heart pumping.

G. Branden Robinson                |     The power of accurate observation
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     is frequently called cynicism by
branden@debian.org                 |     those who don't have it.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |     -- George Bernard Shaw

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: