Re: Free Art License
Mathieu Stumpf <mathieu.stumpf@sicd.u-strasbg.fr>
> The already a discution[1] which was opened about this license, but I
> didn't find if this license is DFSG complient.
I have reviewed the discussion of
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/09/msg00132.html
In my opinion, this license:
+ permits free redistribution (DFSG 1),
* MIGHT include source code (DFSG 2),
+ permits derived works (DFSG 3),
+ acceptably protects integrity of the author's source (DFSG 4),
* MIGHT discriminate against people (DFSG 5),
+ doesn't discriminate against fields of endeavour (DFSG 6),
+ allows distribution of licence (DFSG 7),
+ is not specific to debian (DFSG 8),
+ doesn't contaminate other software (DFSG 9),
and I think it's GPL-incompatible due to section 5 and generally
poorly-worded (in English, at least) with several lawyerbombs.
I think it's impractical for debian, as section 2.2 might mean that
the originals have to be hosted forever. Section 2.2 also forbids
anonymous contributions, which might be a problem.
I would suggest using the GPLv2+ instead, but software under this license
might follow the DFSG. Which packages or potential packages are covered?
Hope that helps,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: