On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 01:00:16 +0100 Erik Schanze wrote: [...] > I got a Bug against package "afio" because of licence problems. > Please see http://bugs.debian.org/509287. > > There was already a similar Bug 9 years ago that was closed, after one > person from this list gave his OK. > (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/05/msg00162.html) I don't quite agree with the ease the issue was handled with back in 1999... > > But I think it's not that easy. It seems the clause is problematic. > > There is an ongoing discussion on a Redhat list > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449037 and they excluded > the package already. There is an other blog on > http://www.kernelplanet.org/fedora/ that gave a summary of the current > situation. If the license for (a part of) the package is, as stated: * ------------------------------------------------------------------ * * License notice 1, covering part of this software package. * * [Covers the original 1985 afio code] * * Copyright (c) 1985 Lachman Associates, Inc.. * * This software was written by Mark Brukhartz at Lachman Associates, * Inc.. It may be distributed within the following restrictions: * (1) It may not be sold at a profit. * (2) This credit and notice must remain intact. * This software may be distributed with other software by a commercial * vendor, provided that it is included at no additional charge. * * * [Note: it is believed that condition 5 of the Perl "Artistic * License" implies the intent of restriction (1) above.] * * -------- then I think there are some serious issues. First off: restriction (1) seems to fail DFSG#1, as it forbids selling the software package, even "as a component of an aggregate software distribution". The following exception does not help, IMHO, since it discriminates against people who are not "commercial vendors" (DFSG#5): whatever that may mean, I think at least some people will not qualify as "commercial vendors". Moreover: where's the permission to modify the software package? The license seems to utterly fail to meet DFSG#3. I personally think that afio should be moved to the non-free archive, provided that it is deemed to be legally distributable (the attempt to claim that the whole package is under a different license could even be seen as a copyright violation, maybe). What I wrote above is my own personal opinion, my usual disclaimers apply: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- On some search engines, searching for my nickname AND "nano-documents" may lead you to my website... ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpFC5EAJqlX0.pgp
Description: PGP signature