On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 11:42:35PM +0900, Osamu Aoki wrote: > But this "dissident test" has been streched to the extreme and shot down > many licenses as DFSG violation. <snip> > * requiring to comply with law of the country is quite reasonable > (GPL2.0 does. Many licenses also require export control compliance.) No, it is not reasonable, and it is not DFSG-compliant. If there are licenses being allowed into Debian that are enshrining requirements to comply with unrelated laws, that's something that needs to be corrected ASAP. Do you have a specific example of software in main whose license requires the user/developer to comply with particular laws? (Note that the GPL2.0 does NOT require compliance with the law; it only states that you may not use other legal obligations as a justification for failure to comply with the terms of the GPL.) The DFSG does not allow licenses to discriminate against fields of endeavour, and that absolutely includes illegal ones. The law is sometimes wrong; it's important that users of Debian not be exposed to double jeopardy as a result, including in cases of civil disobedience. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature