On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 12:06:37AM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote: > vorlon@debian.org wrote: > >Above and beyond the issue of distributing code without proper license > >notices, the APSL 2.0 is not, in the opinion of many (and AFAICT, according > >to the consensus of the debian-legal mailing list), a free license under the > Where "many" in this context should be read as "an handful of people on > the debian-legal mailing list who invented new rules which are not part > of the DFSG". > >Again, while the question of which parts of the license (if any) fail the > >DFSG is still somewhat open, the fact is that this license imposes a number > >of restrictions on the licensee which are not present in more traditional > >Free Software licenses. Now that it's known that this package is licensed > >under the APSL and not under a BSD license, I believe it's best to remove > >mdnsresponder from the archive until such a time as it's made available > >under a different license or there's a clear consensus that the APSL 2.0 is > >a DFSG-free license. > Do you suggest removing from the archive all packages whose licenses > impose uncommon restrictions or just this one? Personally, I think all licenses that impose restrictions like those in the APSL are non-free. It's not like we have any shortage of software in main that's made available to us under sane licenses. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature