> > I'm not sure I agree. I certainly think software legal to distribute > > only because of a sunset clause cannot go in main. As I argued in my > > previous message, I believe it violates the implicit assumption that > > you will have the right to continue distributing the software in DFSG > > 1.
On Wed, 15 May 2002, Branden Robinson wrote: > I think I would agree with you if we're talking about something like KDE > or nessus, but not in the case of apt. What? This seems an odd position - apt can go into main with a license that would keep KDE out? > Apt got a sunset clause as a generous move to help somebodye ELSE out > with THEIR license problem. Do you perceive that as illegitimate, or as > rendering apt non-DFSG-free? I'm afraid I haven't read the apt license. Could you summarize the sunset clause in it? "rendering apt non-DFSG-free" is not what anyone is claiming. "failing to make Debian's packaging of apt DFSG-free" is how I might phrase it. I'd certainly not claim that a sunset clause makes something unfree. I DO claim that such a clause makes it as free as the intersection of the licenses rather than the union of them. > If not, then perhaps we have found a dividing line that distinguishes > acceptable uses of sunset clauses from unacceptable ones. I propose this line: If our packaging (aka derived work including any linking we do) is DFSG-free both before and after the sunset, then we accept it into main. My concern is to prevent us creating a Debian release that is non-distributable after some future date. -- Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
