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

Bug#381729: marked as done (Artistic Licence considered non-free)

Your message dated Sat, 07 Jun 2008 22:19:18 -0700
with message-id <[🔎] 87fxrosdux.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
and subject line Rejected: Bug#381729: Artistic Licence considered non-free
has caused the Debian Bug report #381729,
regarding Artistic Licence considered non-free
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
381729: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=381729
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: base-files
Version: 3.1.13
Severity: normal

The FSF considers the artistic licence non-free:

  http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#ArtisticLicense

IANAL, but maybe this also applies to Debian and the licence in
common-licences should be replaced with the Artistic Licence 2.0?

Cheers,

-- 
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
 
 .''`.     martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org>
: :'  :    proud Debian developer and author: http://debiansystem.info
`. `'`
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
This proposal (and its current title) were a bit confusingly phrased, but
the essence is to request that the Artistic license be replaced by the
Artistic 2.0 license in common-licenses.

There's another bug (#458385) requesting inclusion of the Artistic 2.0
license that includes more discussion of use in the archive, so that
portion of this bug is a duplicate.  As for removing the existing Artistic
license, it's in widespread use since nearly every Perl 5 module is
released under it.  Removing licenses from common-licenses is sort of like
removing packages from Essential; it's not something we can do without
very strong justification and a lot of work.  And in this case, the
original Artistic license qualifies for inclusion anyway.

Accordingly, I'm rejecting this proposal.

If you disagree with the rejection of this proposal for reasons that
weren't raised in the prior bug discussion, please raise them in this bug.
If you disagree with the rejection of this proposal for reasons already
raised in the bug, the path of appeal for a Policy proposal rejection is
to the tech-ctte.  See http://www.debian.org/devel/tech-ctte for how to
make an appeal to the tech-ctte.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

--- End Message ---
Reply to: