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


allan1956 writes:

> Thanks for some insights between OSI and DFSG
> I certianly didn't mean to imply that DFSG would accept just because OSI
> did.  
> >From a process and end-goal perspective they appear to be different
> Though from a legal perspective I respect rossen (who has left OSI) and
> assume his evaluation that the DFA/FAR clause in question did not violate
> the guidelines/definition  for the OSSI and it appears the APPL (Apple)
> licenses would be a pretty good indicator, but as you say nothing more then
> an indicator
> Curious quesiton, is there any OSI approved license that DFSG has
> rejected/disapproved as not compliant with the guidelines?   
> (Setting aside nonGPL compliant licenses and GPL compliancy issues of
> course)

http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses lists several such licenses --
compare to http://www.opensource.org/licenses/.  Notable examples are
the APL, MPL, OSL and RPSL; there may be others derived from MPL that
also fail DFSG, and I would argue that QPL has been settled as not

Michael Poole

Reply to: