Ben Finney wrote:
Laurent Chretienneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
The CPAL is an OSI approved license.
How is that relevant to Debian?
Because the requirement for being open source is the same as being free
for Debian (with the replacement of free by opensource and the
suppression of any reference to Debian). I can well understand that both
organizations does not interpret the rules the same way. Just another
proof that the freeness or opensourcness of a software does not depend
only of the software and the guidelines as subscribers of this list have
previously claimed. Instead of DFSG-free (that I recognise I have used
and even promoted) it would be best to use Debian-free instead; the
guidelines are only the rules to determine if a software is indeed
Debian-free.
By the way; it would be interesting to have an example of a license
which is opensource while being rejected by Debian (I mean that have
really be rejected by Debian).
Olive
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
