On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 12:07:07AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 16:55:11 +0300 Adrian Bunk wrote: > > [...] > > 4-clause BSD with the advertising clause has always been recognized > > as DFSG-free (and is also listed at [1]): > > > > All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this > > software must display the following acknowledgement: This product > > includes software developed by the <copyright holder>. > > Yes, although it is obnoxious, deprecated, problematic and > almost everywhere recommended against, it has been traditionally > considered acceptable with respect to the DFSG. > > The obnoxious advertising clause might be seen as similar to the bmagic > license clause under consideration. > So, maybe bmagic complies with the DFSG. > > > AGPLv3 with the following clause is DFSG-free[2]: > > > > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify > > the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users > > interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your > > version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the > > Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the > > Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through > > some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of > > software. > > I believe that this is an unfortunate example, for at least two reasons. > > First off, the GNU AfferoGPL v3 is a controversial license, which (this is > true) has been considered acceptable for main by the Debian FTP Masters > [2], but is seen as non-acceptable by a number of people (including me > [3]).
AGPLv3 is an example of a licence that is considered DFSG-free by Debian, this is a precedent no matter whether you or I like it. We do (thankfully) not have a history of changing what licences we consider DFSG-free. > Secondly, I don't see much similarity between this clause and the bmagic > license clause under consideration. Hence, I don't think that the > DFSG-freeness of works released under the terms of the GNU AfferoGPL v3 > is too relevant for the topic we're discussing here. >... Reinhard was arguing with "imposes a specific redistribution burden". AGPLv3 requires something from the user far more often than 4-clause BSD, not only when advertising the use of the software. How can a requirement to maintain a specific reference on a project page be considered not DFSG-free, when the AGPLv3 precedent is that a requirement to "prominently" link to the sources is DFSG-free? cu Adrian
