Re: DFSG-freeness of Apache Software Licenses
Scripsit "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@apache.org>
> I have read the comments. Why are people "judging" the "freeness"
> of software according to the DFSG without actually referring to the
> DFSG itself? DFSG determines what is or is not free for Debian, not
> someone gabbing on a mailing list,
The G in "DFSG" is for "Guidelines". We take that expansion seriously.
The DFSG is not a computer program or a mathematical formula that will
give an objective, reproducible answer if you stick in a license text
and crank the handle. It is a piece of prose that aims to give readers
a feel for what we check when we determine if software is free enough
to be distributed by Debian. Sometimes it does not achieve that goal,
which is too bad, but is not going to change the actual judgements we
make.
> and certainly not a "consensus" as expressed by three individuals.
For better or worse, the debian-legal consensus *is* the operative
defintion of what is or is not rejected from Debian on licensing
grounds. (Unless overruled by higher powers, who are few and have
other principal duties to see to, that is).
> Several comments are to the effect that the patent license cannot be
> terminated. There is no such restriction in the DFSG.
The DFSG says that free software must be usable by anyone without
doing any specific favors towards upstream authors or patent
holders. If a piece of software is encumbered by patents that are not
available to anyone without jumping through hoops (such as agreeing to
not sue some upstream contributor), then the software is not free.
> Furthermore, the GPL, BSD, and other licenses that Debian claims are
> free have no patent license grant at all, which is equivalent to a
> terminated license.
A program covered by the GPL or BSD is indeed not free if it happens
to be encumbered by a patent that somebody is enforcing actively.
The precense of a (limited) patent grant in your license makes it
natural to assume that the program in question *is* (or is expected to
be) encumbered by such patents. If there are no relevant patents at
all, then of course the patent grant and the restriction are both
no-ops, but then why have them there at all?
> If the proposed 2.0 license is non-free, then none of your example
> licenses are free either.
Licenses are not free by themselves. Software may be free. The
copyright license plays a big role in determining whether that is the
case, but the judgement cannot be made for a license without
considering it in relation to the software it applies to.
What we say is the software licences under the GPL or the BSD license
will not be non-free *because of that license*. There may still be
patent issues that prevent such software from being included in Debian.
> However, I will note that no such restriction exists in the DFSG,
See comments above.
> That is absurd -- there is no such restriction in DFSG.
See comments above.
> Whether or not individuals dislike it is not relevant -- it is a
> requirement passed down by the Java Community Process.
Which is not at all an argument that it is necessarily free.
> AFAIK, Debian does not redistribute Java software,
There's plenty of Java in Debian...
> so neither the RI nor the TCK licenses apply to Debian.
... and in any case, free licenses cannot be specific to Debian.
--
Henning Makholm "... popping pussies into pies
Wouldn't do in my shop
just the thought of it's enough to make you sick
and I'm telling you them pussy cats is quick ..."
Reply to: