Re: AROS License DFSG ok?
On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 08:19:35PM +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 07, 2005 at 01:47:36PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> Again, this clause is part of the MPL, which is presently considered
> >> DFSG-free.
> >
> > No, the MPL is not clearly free[1]. See
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html
>
> The reasons used for declaring the MPL non-free are either not embodied
> in the DFSG, or are based on an interpretation of DFSG 3 that I disagree
> with. It may not be clearly free, but it's certainly not clearly
> non-free.
... hence my choice of words and footnote. The conclusion remains: citing
the MPL isn't enough to convince a lot of people that this or that clause
is free. (Citing licenses with strong consensus, like the GPL, works;
citing contended licenses doesn't.)
--
Glenn Maynard
Reply to: