On Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:25:20 -0400 Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > [ Please keep me in the CC since I am not subscribed to -legal ] Done. > > I was recently asked to sponsor an upload of a package that carries the > below license. Is this license acceptable for main? [...] The license you quoted seems to be a modified variant of the Artistic License v1.0 [1]. Besides some cosmetic changes, the main differences are: * in sub-paragraph 4(c), which is however not much important since the DFSG-free option is 4(b), I think * in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7, where some exceptions specific to language interpreters were dropped: I don't think that the dropped parts were essential for compliance with the DFSG * paragraph 8 of the Artistic License was dropped entirely: again, I don't think its presence was essential for compliance with the DFSG [1] /usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic In summary, I don't see anything that could make this license less DFSG-compliant than the Artistic License v1.0. As far as the original Artistic License v1.0 is concerned, I personally don't like it, and I would recommend against its adoption, but it has been considered acceptable for main for a long time and I don't see any clear non-freeness in it... This is my opinion, let's wait for other debian-legal participants to express theirs... My usual disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/index.html#nanodocs The nano-document series is here! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgplna1gSlF_3.pgp
Description: PGP signature