Your message dated Mon, 13 Feb 2017 23:42:52 +0100
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Re: Bug#854721: ftp.debian.org: Artistic License 1.0 is not
DFSG compliant
has caused the Debian Bug report #854825,
regarding ftp.debian.org: 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 [email protected]
immediately.)
--
854825: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=854825
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: debian-policy
Severity: wishlist
Version: 3.9.8.0
X-Debbugs-CC: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
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.)
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Javier Serrano Polo writes:
> El dj 09 de 02 de 2017 a les 18:10 -0800, Russ Allbery va escriure:
>> 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.
>
> Then let us move this to ftp.debian.org. FTP team, please read #854679
> and this report. The main issue is, in essence, whether the requirement
> to not sell individual software is against DFSG #6 (no discrimination
> against fields of endeavor).
DFSG #1 specifically only requires "may not restrict any party from
selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate
software distribution containing programs from several different
sources".
(And DFSG #6 only talks about "making use" and not redistribution
anyway.)
Ansgar
--- End Message ---
