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

Re: DFSG conform OSI licenses

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?

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

Reply to: