Francesco Poli wrote: > A package that includes a part which is licensed in a non-free > manner does *not* comply with the DFSG. I cannot extract that part > of FlameRobin source code (namely the IBPP C++ classes) and > exercise the freedoms the DFSG guarantee. Therefore, FlameRobin > does not meet the DFSG and cannot be in main, according to the SC. You can extract IBPP from FlameRobin and do whatever you want with it as long as it is included in a "Hello, World!"-probram. Yes, this is a restriction, but is easily worked around. > I repeat. My suggestion is: try (harder) to persuade IBPP upstream > to adopt the real unmodified Expat license. That way, every concern > would vanish. I am trying since November 2005. Not that I have no progress (original license was IDPL - an MPL clone). This is what upstream says about original expat: I know that some people would prefer IBPP to go with the unchanged Expat license (often mistakenly named MIT/BSD license - which is not the exact same thing) because it looks so close to that one. But no, it won't be. IBPP has its own terms. and later: This discussion is over for me. I will have well enough to do with the OSI certification in the coming weeks and months. MJRay, may we have your comments too? Olivier sent me copies of some off-list discussion in which you tend to agree that new license is ok for Debian. Firendly, dam -- Damyan Ivanov Creditreform Bulgaria divanov@creditreform.bg http://www.creditreform.bg/ phone: +359(2)928-2611, 929-3993 fax: +359(2)920-0994 mob. +359(88)856-6067 dam@jabber.minus273.org/Gaim
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature