On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:18:00 +0100 A Mennucc wrote:

> hi d-legal,

Hi!  :)

> Some artwork is covered by the attached Design Science License.
> Is it fine to include that stuff in the package and upload?
> (I would say yes, but you may have a more informed opinion).

The DSL has already been discussed on d-l, back in 2000:

No DFSG-freeness issues were found at the time.
Unfortunately the license text was not fully quoted in that thread and
the cited URL does not seem to be valid any longer.
As a consequence, it's really hard to know if the license text
discussed in that past thread is identical to the one we are discussing
now, or differs.
This is one of the primary reasons behind the recommendation to always
fully quote the license text in a license analysis thread!
Thanks for doing so!

Oh well, back to the current discussion, then.

I see one possible issue with this license: clause 3(a) states

| (a) The Source Data is included in the same distribution, distributed
| under the terms of this License; or

while the other two options are non-free (just as in the GNU GPL).

Option (a) seems to force distributors of the Object Form to *include*
Source Data, rather than to *accompany* it with Source Data (compare
with GNU GPL v2, clause 3a).
Does this mean that Source Data for DSL'ed works *must* be shipped
in Debian binary packages, as well as in Debian source packages?
If this is the case, does this restriction comply with the DFSG?
It sounds really unpractical at best.

My standardized disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP.

 New! Version 0.6 available! What? See for yourself!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgptQzPu0oxGO.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to