[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Non-freeness of the AFL v3.0

Hi all!

I am seeking help on bug #689919.

The bug log [1] tells all the story and is not too long.
Anyway, in a nutshell, subversion includes a file released under the
terms of the infamous AFL v3.0. My analysis of the license text
was sent to debian-legal [2] on September 2012 and received no
I reported the bug on October 2012; comments were asked to the author
of the license (Larry Rosen), who, unsurprisingly, claimed that there
is no problem with his license.
After a long silence, the bug report was closed firstly with the claim
that the current consensus is that AFL v3.0 is OK, and successively,
that there is no consensus about its non-freeness.

What do other debian-legal regulars think about this issue?
Since my analysis was sent to this mailing list and received
no counter arguments or rebuttals, I assume that the consensus
here is that the AFL v3.0 is *not* OK for main.

I think that the bug report should be reopened.
Do you agree?

[1] https://bugs.debian.org/689919
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2012/09/msg00082.html

 fsck is a four letter word...
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgpQ3XRV4zLw7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: