Francesco Poli <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't think the APSL 2.0 is acceptable for main. [...] > Please see the following thread > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00545.html > for all the details.
So, to summarise: - it contaminates other software (DFSG 9) in patent-afflicted places, and/or discriminates against hardware patent holders (DFSG 5); - it has a choice of venue clause (DFSG 1 to some people); - there's an open question about service provision; - there's a potential supertrademark in clause 10; but the blocker is probably: - clause 2.3 looks like a practical problem for compiled code in debian. So I really hope that BOINC have a wholly-LGPL copy. Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
