Re: Non-freeness of the AFL v3.0
Ian Jackson <email@example.com> wrote:
> If we want to distribute AFL3.0 code whose copyrightholder is not
> Larry Rosen, we should probably send the copyrightholder an email
> pointing to this interpretation, just so that they have the
> opportunity to disagree now rather than later. (And include that
> email and any reply in the copyright file.)
This is the case we have today with svn_load_dirs. Are you saying
that we should not distribute svn_load_dirs until we get this
I also must say that I am not convinced by Larry Rosen's explanation.
However, there isn't a soul in the software world who doesn't know
that Debian software is open source and that the actual software
licenses are posted in all the appropriate places somewhere.
is manifestly not true. Lots of people in the software world have no
idea what Debian is. Will I get into trouble if I sell someone a live
CD without getting them to assent to the AFL? Sony is not the most
benevolent of companies.
Also, reading the license, I would expect it to require Debian to do
what Sony, the current copyright holder, does in all of their own
installers: require explicit assent via a clickwrap. Even judges
would be familiar with that mechanism and not think it odd to require
Finally, this comment
That's because you are diligent and careful in what you distribute.
makes it sound like if Debian starts getting sloppy in other areas
then Debian will get in trouble. That feels wrong.