On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 12:00:25 +0300 Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> I beleive this is not a problem, since the
> FlameRobin package would satisfy both licensing (original Expath and
> this modified thingy - the IBPP license) and the Social contract. I
> mention SC, because of this text: "We promise that the Debian system
> and all its components will be free according to these guidelines.".
> If we take "components" to be equal to "packages" then I beleive[1]
> the FlameRobin package fits in SC and DFSG.
I don't agree.
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.
I repeat.
My suggestion is: try (harder) to persuade IBPP upstream to adopt the
real unmodified Expat license.
That way, every concern would vanish.
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgppfmr9VhrKg.pgp
Description: PGP signature