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

Re: Bug#442032: CPAL

Ben Finney wrote:
Laurent Chretienneau <lchretienneau@projity.com> writes:

The CPAL is an OSI approved license.

How is that relevant to Debian?

Because the requirement for being open source is the same as being free for Debian (with the replacement of free by opensource and the suppression of any reference to Debian). I can well understand that both organizations does not interpret the rules the same way. Just another proof that the freeness or opensourcness of a software does not depend only of the software and the guidelines as subscribers of this list have previously claimed. Instead of DFSG-free (that I recognise I have used and even promoted) it would be best to use Debian-free instead; the guidelines are only the rules to determine if a software is indeed Debian-free.

By the way; it would be interesting to have an example of a license which is opensource while being rejected by Debian (I mean that have really be rejected by Debian).


Reply to: