On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 05:07:00PM +0000, Elmar Stellnberger wrote: > > Am 08.11.2013 16:33, schrieb Paul Tagliamonte: > >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 04:15:30PM +0000, Elmar Stellnberger wrote: > >>>>"specific to someone": Well this is an unavoidable necessity in order to > >>>Maybe, but specific clauses like this clearly violate OSD #3 and #5 > >>>(#3: if your downstream “A” is a “public distribution” and A’s > >>>downstream “B” isn’t, B cannot distribute them under the same terms > >>>as it got them from A under). > >>Well we could crop out this special facilitation but that would make > >>the license less fit for practical purposes. I do not want to sacrifice > >>practical fitness towards perfectly strict OSI compliance. > >To be clear, not satisfying OSD 3 & 5 (DFSG 3 and 5 as well) this will > >*NOT* be fit for Debian main. You're free to try to get it into > >non-free. > > Concerning OSD conformance please see for the discussion at http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss/2013-November/001358.html. Debian doesn't use OSI conformance as it's measure for free software. We have our own tests (the DFSG), and a team to work out if a license is free (the ftpteam). Last I checked, your license will still not be fit for Debian main. Cheers! Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paultag@debian.org> : :' : Proud Debian Developer `. `'` 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature