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

Re: drbdmanage EULA conforming to DFSG?

(Resending a similar mail to d-legal because my previous attempt was
rejected by the OSI listserver.)

Markus Frosch writes ("drbdmanage EULA conforming to DFSG?"):
> I, myself, would consider the license non-free in terms of DFSG, due to this paragraph:
> > 3.4) Without prior written consent of LICENSOR or an authorized partner,
> > LICENSEE is not allowed to:
> > [...]
> > b) provide commercial turn-key solutions based on the LICENSED
> >    SOFTWARE or commercial services for the LICENSED SOFTWARE or
> >    its modifications to any third party (e.g. software support or
> >    trainings).
> What's your opinion about that clause?

Wow.  That's horrible.  This is definitely unacceptable for Debian.

(I haven't read the rest of the licence.  It's been suggested on
debian-legal that this is far from the only serious problem.)

> > Is DRBD Manage open source software?
> >
> > Yes, the license meets OSI?^@^Ys Open Source Definition, it
> > conforms to Debian?^@^Ys social contract, it conforms to
> > Ubuntu?^@^Ys licensing policy and it is within Launchpad?^@^Ys
> > licensing conditions.

This is clearly false as regards acceptability to Debian.
I doubt very much that they have talked to OSI or to Ubuntu.

I have CC'd one of the OSI lists and legal@canonical.

As the three institutions whose names are being taken in vain, I think
it would be good for us to have a coordinated response.


Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Reply to: