On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:47:19 +0000 Henning Makholm wrote: > > *D R A F T* > > Debian licence summary of the Common Public License version 1.0 > > I suppose the lack of response implies that nobody agrees with my > summary. Or maybe that nobody (strongly) disagrees? ;-) I personally did not reply, as I have no strong opinion about this topic (and because of lack of time, of course...). I'm a bit worried by the two issues you pointed out, especially since the CPL is adopted by some important packages such as Postfix... :-( But, OTOH, * the indemnification clause seems to be unenforceable (or at least we hope so!) * the license-auto-upgrade seems to be annoying (or even obnoxious, if you don't trust IBM!) but maybe not (too) harmful for recipients' freedoms (I mean: it weakens the copyleft, but doesn't goes to the detriment of users' freedom) So perhaps you're right that the CPL is DFSG-free, but really really close to the non-free boundary... Anyway maybe we should try and persuade Postfix upstream to adopt a clearer license. Or even better persuade IBM to publish a new and better version of the CPL (thus exploiting the license-auto-upgrade!). -- Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday. ...................................................................... Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpLTY04Flg6d.pgp
Description: PGP signature