On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 21:56 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Soeren Sonnenburg <debian@nn7.de> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 12:05 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> > > 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.
>
> Wishing ain't going to make it happen. The following problems prevent it:
well lets at least *try* to do it.
> 1. inspecting the debian/copyright file manually is the only reliable way
> to detect which licence(s) apply to a package. ISTR we were quite
> conservative in compiling the legal/licenses/ list, only listing those
> most common or clearest cases;
I am only asking for OSI certified licenses. I think it is worth
supporting licenses that are officially termed open source (and give
people a chance of understanding which part of the license makes it
impossible for being in debian main). Anyway having a look at
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical list 'only' 60 licenses.
While I personally think 60 licenses should be more than enough, I
understand debian will accept a lot more.
> 2. rejections are seldom that clear-cut and public;
This is OK to me if the package comes under a non official OSS license.
> 3. *packages* are rejected, not *licenses*;
Of course... illegal shortcut my bad.
> 4. after all that, ftpmaster decisions can be surprising and sometimes
> even direct 'why?' questions are not answered in public - the most recent
> one I recall was about the MPL and Electronic Distribution Mechanisms
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00223.html
> (which I've yet to act on.)
Well at least that part of the MPL does not seem to be a problem, as
#3.2 of the MPL says and debian releases are shipped on CD/DVDs w/ the
source
"Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be
made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License
either on the same media as an Executable version or via an accepted
Electronic Distribution Mechanism to anyone to whom you made an
Executable version available;[...]"
I am not sure what happened to #2.1 from
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html though...
[...]
Anyway I below quote both the OSI open source definition and DFSG and as
no one pointed me to any analysis on what could cause incompatibilities
I am now just commenting on the parts below. In summary I think that the
OSI's open source definition is in some points even more strict than the
DFSG (e.g. 10. does not exist in debian) and thus I would expect most of
the software coming under a open source license to be DFSG OK too.
The only conflicting item I see is item 2, which is exactly the problem
with the MPL. However if the argument above holds for the MPL I don't
see why it does not hold for all OSI certified licenses, i.e. debian
distributes the source code together with the program. Therefore I fail
to see why *any* program under satisfying OSI's 10 points on OSS is not
DFSG conform and so I would claim any of the 60 OSI-OSS licenses is OK.
Now please prove me wrong.
Soeren
1. Free Redistribution (OSI)
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the
software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing
programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a
royalty or other fee for such sale.
vs Free Redistribution (debian) -> OK
The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from
selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate
software distribution containing programs from several different
sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such
sale.
2. Source Code (OSI)
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is
not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means
of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction
cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source
code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the
program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed.
Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator
are not allowed.
vs Source Code (debian) -> NOT OK if program is not distributed with
source
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in
source code as well as compiled form.
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow
them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the
original software.
vs Derived Works (debian) -> OK
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow
them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the
original software.
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code (OSI)
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified
form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with
the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time.
The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from
modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a
different name or version number from the original software.
vs. Integrity of The Author's Source Code (debian) -> OK
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified
form _only_ if the license allows the distribution of patch files with
the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time.
The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from
modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a
different name or version number from the original software. (This is a
compromise. The Debian group encourages all authors not to restrict any
files, source or binary, from being modified.)
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups (OSI)
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of
persons.
vs No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups (debian) -> OK
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of
persons.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor (OSI)
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a
specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program
from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
vs No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor (debian) -> OK
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a
specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program
from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
7. Distribution of License (OSI)
The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program
is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license
by those parties.
vs Distribution of License (debian) -> OK
The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program
is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license
by those parties.
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product (OSI)
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's
being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is
extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the
terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is
redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in
conjunction with the original software distribution.
vs. License Must Not Be Specific to Debian (debian) -> OK
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's
being part of a Debian system. If the program is extracted from Debian
and used or distributed without Debian but otherwise within the terms of
the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed
should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction
with the Debian system.
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software (OSI)
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is
distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license
must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium
must be open-source software.
vs. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software (debian) -> OK
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is
distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license
must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium
must be free software.
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral (OSI)
No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual
technology or style of interface.
vs. does not exist (debian) -> OK
--
Sometimes, there's a moment as you're waking, when you become aware of
the real world around you, but you're still dreaming.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part