On Sat, 13 Jun 2015 22:45:54 +0100 Simon McVittie wrote: > On 13/06/15 15:45, Francesco Poli wrote: > > As also noted by Walter Landry, there's a crucial difference w.r.t. > > Apache v2: the latter license requires to preserve attribution notices > > within "NOTICE" files; the AFL v3.0 requires instead to preserve *any* > > descriptive text identified as an "Attribution Notice" (even when this > > text includes something other than attribution notices!). > > > > I think this is non-free, unless all descriptive texts identified as > > "Attribution Notices" only contain attribution notices. > > The ftpmasters do not decide whether Debian will accept particular > licenses; they decide whether Debian will accept particular software. > One possible outcome for this part would be the ftpmasters deciding that > AFL-3.0 software is only Free if it does not have any Attribution > Notices that are not, in fact, attribution notices. Yes, that's basically what I meant. Sorry for not being clear enough. I think this clause is OK only for works where there are no descriptive texts identified as "Attribution Notices", but containing parts which are not attribution notices. I hope it's clearer now. Unfortunately, the other problematic clauses still hold... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgpdjHYpVCLNJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature