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

Bug#854721: marked as done (debian-policy: Artistic License 1.0 is not DFSG compliant)

Your message dated Thu, 09 Feb 2017 18:10:03 -0800
with message-id <87shnmiyo4.fsf@hope.eyrie.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#854721: debian-policy: Artistic License 1.0 is not DFSG compliant
has caused the Debian Bug report #854721,
regarding debian-policy: Artistic License 1.0 is not DFSG compliant
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.)


-- 
854721: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=854721
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Version: 3.9.8.0
X-Debbugs-CC: aba@debian.org, ballombe@debian.org, jrnieder@gmail.com, rra@debian.org

Please read #854679; it is about the ScummVM-game-License. As I analyze,
that license breaks DFSG #6 (no discrimination against fields of
endeavor). Author's intent is clear since he states that using the game
"in things like commercial adventure game collections without asking is
just playing dirty". The preamble is not legally binding, but sections 3
and 4 of the license are.

This forbids this possible use case: a businessman hires some
developers, translators and voice actors to translate the game to his
language, and wants to sell the result.

The pattern "cannot sell the software itself" restricts commercial
purposes, thus it is not DFSG compliant. ScummVM-game-License, Bitstream
Vera font license, and Artistic License 1.0 are affected.

The question is whether the alleged poor wording of a clause is
internationally a solid defense in a copyright infringement suit.
Debian-based distros themselves are not threatened because they are
larger in scope, but commercial Debian users of this software are
menaced.

(This report will not reach the debian-policy list.)

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
Javier Serrano Polo <javier@jasp.net> writes:

> Please read #854679; it is about the ScummVM-game-License. As I analyze,
> that license breaks DFSG #6 (no discrimination against fields of
> endeavor). Author's intent is clear since he states that using the game
> "in things like commercial adventure game collections without asking is
> just playing dirty". The preamble is not legally binding, but sections 3
> and 4 of the license are.

Regardless of the merits of this concern, this is not an actionable bug
against Debian Policy.  I'm therefore closing it.

Please note that this is not a judgement on whether or not your concerns
about the Artistic License are correct; rather, this is simply outside the
bailiwick of the Debian Policy process.  We aren't the body in Debian that
judges the DFSG compatibility of licenses (that's ftp-master), nor do we
own or can modify the DFSG itself.

You either need to convince ftp-master or you (or someone) need to propose
a GR to change Debian's evaluation of the Artistic License.  In fact, this
may require a GR given the DFSG specifically calls out the Artistic
License as an example of a free license, so depending on one's
interpretation this may require a foundational document change, which is a
supermajority GR.  But that too is outside the scope of the Policy
process; that's a call for the Project Secretary to make.

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

--- End Message ---
Reply to: