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. I couldn't find an appropriate list for Ubuntu. Maybe someone else here knows how to bring this to the appropriate Ubuntu people's attention ? Ian. -- Ian Jackson <ijack...@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.