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

Bug#321178: A couple of points...

Andrew Saunders wrote:
>>The x3270 package was previously removed from the archive due to
>>licensing issues (see #248853 for details).
> I was the submitter of that bug. Thanks for following up on this.
> Just a couple of points, though, if I may:
>>The issue is whether your "public use" conforms to the OSI open
>>source definition (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php).
> No. We're not OSI; the issue is whether or not it conforms to Debian's
> Free Software Guidelines.

Of course we're not OSI, but don't forget that the OSI document
originates in the DFSG. And I prefer to give them something that would
be relevant also for other distros, not just Debian.

> Also, for simplicity's sake, you might want to suggest a known-good
> license that's already had some form of review. It saves the copyright
> holder the trouble of wading through the DFSG, and eliminates the
> possibility of their interpreting them in such as way as to
> accidentally relicense their stuff under terms that *still* don't make
> the cut. In #248853, Nathaniel Nerode suggested the MIT/X11-like or
> the Georgia Institute of Technology licenses... Either of those'd be
> just dandy.

Done. Suggested them with the MIT license.

> Anyway, just a couple of suggestions. As I said at the start, thanks
> for getting the ball rolling again.
> Cheers,
> --
> Andrew Saunders



Lior Kaplan

Debian GNU/Linux unstable (SID)

Reply to: