On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 12:05 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > debian@nn7.de wrote: > > >the recent discussion about 'Firebird being in main' caused even more > >confusion on my side, as the sites [1], [2] (which I consider the > >debian-official statement wrt. which license is DFSG compliant) do not > >list the MPL as a DFSG conform license but as DFSG-incompatible [1]. > The only official statements about DFSG compliance are made by the > ftpmasters. Well this is not too helpful. I would wish that licenses that are acceptable are all officially listed somewhere (here? http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ ). Also each rejected license should be documented (with the reasons why it is conflicting). Else it is hard to decide / understand whether a package should go to main. > Especially the wiki contains obvious bullshit, e.g. Postfix is licensed > under the IBM PL and I do not remember anybody ever seriously contesting > its freeness. > And while some of the debian-legal licensing kooks mutter about the MPL > from time to time, there are many MPL-only packages in the archive and I > do not subscribe to the theory that the ftpmasters are idiots who can > miss "licensing bugs" for years (i.e. when a different majority forms > on debian-legal@). So this means, MPL, CPL == IBM PL are all DFSG conform licenses. > >More generally, as I understand the ten items that lead to the OSI open > >source definition [5] are based on the DFSG. Now I wonder which extra > >requirements the DFSG (suddenly?) include such that certain open source > >projects choosing a particular OSI license cannot enter debian main. > Actually, soon after being created OSI started relaxing their > interpretation of the DFSG to allow licenses which were widely believed > by the Debian community to be problematic. IIRC they also made minor > changes to the OSD. > It was after this that the DFSG-revisionists began to infest > debian-legal@ and started inventing new criteria for DFSG compliance. Is it know (ie. summarized somewhere) what these modifications are and with which DFSG items they conflict? Thanks, Soeren -- For the one fact about the future of which we can be certain is that it will be utterly fantastic. -- Arthur C. Clarke, 1962
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part