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

Re: Bug#289856: mdnsresponder: Wrong license

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

Reply to: