Andreas Moog <andreas.m...@warperbbs.de> writes: > while packaging libml I noticed the following part in a license text: > (https://github.com/volkszaehler/libsml/blob/master/test/unity/license.txt) > > The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, > must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes > software developed for the Unity Project, by Mike Karlesky, Mark > VanderVoord, and Greg Williams and other contributors", in the same > place and form as other third-party acknowledgments. Alternately, > this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, in the same > form and location as other such third-party acknowledgments.
This is more specific, but IMO not more onerous, than attribution clauses in the BSD licenses. So the questions to answer, I think, are: Does this restrict the recipient's freedoms under DFSG? * Attribution requirement is, in general, considered DFSG-free. * The clause only takes effect if there is already “end-user documentation”. All Debian packages must be distributed with end-user documentation; the ‘debian/copyright’ file is part of that, as you point out. * The attribution states a fact that will, I believe, remain true so long as the software continues. (Some licenses, e.g. the FDL, require preserving statements of fact that are not always true. So it's good to consider this question.) * The clause also allows for the notice to appear “in the same form and location as other such third-party acknowledgements”. So, that definitely describes the ‘debian/copyright’ file. My conclusion is that this is a DFSG-free license, with an unconventionally specific requirement of attribution. I would prefer that the copyright holders should choose a conventional well-understood license, but I don't see that this one causes any specific problem for Debian recipients. -- \ “Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability.” —Edsger W. | `\ Dijkstra | _o__) | Ben Finney