On Mon, 30 Nov 2015 21:20:21 -0500 Paul Tagliamonte wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:23:22PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > > Any other debian-legal regular willing to share his/her opinion? > > Without looking further into it (anyone have a source package I can look > at?), any license that restricts use to only that of implementing a > standard (and not modification nor derived works) is not fit for main. Dear Paul, stressware2 has already replied [1] with an example of a package including material under the license under question. Did you evaluate it? What was your conclusion? I haven't seen any follow-up from you on debian-legal about this issue... As I have previously said [2], I reported a bug against package fbreader due to an almost identical issue with the same license terms. Unfortunately, the fbreader Debian package maintainer disagrees that there is a problem and keeps closing the bug report [3]. There have been multiple attempts to obtain an opinion from FTP Masters (see the bug log), but no response yet. Could you please read the bug log and express your opinion? I would rather avoid seeing this issue pass into oblivion. Thanks for your time. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2015/12/msg00002.html [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2015/12/msg00006.html [3] https://bugs.debian.org/807074 -- 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:
pgpIdcgnJmHeC.pgp
Description: PGP signature