Re: Bug#289856: mdnsresponder: Wrong license
> email@example.com wrote:
> > [...] 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".
Regardless of what you think about the other points, requiring
non-defence of your own patents seems not to follow DFSG 9. Although
I condemn software patents, I know they do exist in some places.
I suspect it really is "many" and not just debian-legal contributors.
Do you really want to argue that software under licences which try to
affect other pieces of unrelated software meets the DFSG?