On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 14:47:19 +0000 Henning Makholm wrote: > > *D R A F T* > > Debian licence summary of the Common Public License version 1.0 > > I suppose the lack of response implies that nobody agrees with my > summary.
Or maybe that nobody (strongly) disagrees? ;-)
I personally did not reply, as I have no strong opinion about this topic
(and because of lack of time, of course...).
I'm a bit worried by the two issues you pointed out, especially since
the CPL is adopted by some important packages such as Postfix... :-(
But, OTOH,
* the indemnification clause seems to be unenforceable (or at least
we hope so!)
* the license-auto-upgrade seems to be annoying (or even obnoxious, if
you don't trust IBM!) but maybe not (too) harmful for recipients'
freedoms (I mean: it weakens the copyleft, but doesn't goes to the
detriment of users' freedom)
So perhaps you're right that the CPL is DFSG-free, but really really
close to the non-free boundary...
Anyway maybe we should try and persuade Postfix upstream to adopt a
clearer license.
Or even better persuade IBM to publish a new and better version of the
CPL (thus exploiting the license-auto-upgrade!).
--
Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpjEXNKDftzu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
