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

Re: Bug#247427: ITP: elfsign -- ELF binary signing and verification utilities

On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 09:58:35PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 12:24:00PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > 
> > The original Artistic license is not appropriate for licensing
> > anything that is not approximately perl, because of the way it is
> > worded. It is a terrible license. Do not use it. It's also highly
> > questionable as to whether things licensed under it can be included in
> > Debian, given the prohibitions on commercial distribution. Please ask
> > upstream to replace it with the Clarified Artistic license (or some
> > other free software license) before this is included in Debian.
> > 
> Oh bleh. Why the hell does DFSG #10 specifically mention it then?

Historical. The Artistic license is basically only appropriate for
perl (and perl modules) because of the way it's written[0], and in
*that specific instance* there aren't any problems.

(This is on my list of things to fix, probably by replacing it with
the Clarified Artistic)

> Interestingly the DFSG links to the Artistic licence at
> http://www.perl.com/pub/a/language/misc/Artistic.html
> whereas http://www.debian.org/intro/free links to it at
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php

Even more interestingly, the latter is not a copy of the Perl Artistic
license. I'm not really sure *what* it is, it's somewhere between that
and the Clarified. elfsign is using the original, which can be found
at /usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic.

What are OSI playing at? Who uses this license?

> I've already asked upstream to change it from:
> elfsign is property of Uninformed Research and is freely distributable under
> the conditions that:
> 1) Modification of the code retains credit to the original author(s)
> 2) The authors may not be blamed for any damages incurred from the use of
> this software.
> to the Artistic licence, after specifically directing him to 
> http://www.debian.org/social_contract
> and
> http://www.debian.org/intro/free

Oops. Best to check with -legal before doing anything with licenses;
there's a lot of stuff floating around that's misleading or outdated.

> If the official line isn't what's on the website, we really should get it
> fixed up.

Yeah, these things take a painful amount of time, were backed up
*years* by the voting system changes, and there have been higher
priorities. I do plan on pressing for a DFSG revision this year,

[0] Clauses like this crap:

 You may embed this Package's interpreter within an executable of
 yours (by linking); this shall be construed as a mere form of
 aggregation, provided that the complete Standard Version of the
 interpreter is so embedded.

 We *need* that clause, but this "interpreter" stuff doesn't make any
 sense for elfsign - it was written for perl. There are several more
 like this.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: