Doesn't this entail getting agreement among all the Linux distributors as well, not just Debian? --t
On 2016-03-09 4:42 AM, Graham Knop wrote:
Based on my reading, the libfcgi-perl debian package has a licensing issue. The base package includes a file LICENSE.TERMS, which shows a license roughly equivalent to the MIT license. It does however include the following phrase: The following terms apply to all files associated with the Software and Documentation unless explicitly disclaimed in individual files. There are three files, fcgios.h, os_unix.c, and os_win32.c, which include a header that conflicts with the base MIT-style terms. They include the following: * Copyright (c) 1995 Open Market, Inc. * All rights reserved. * * This file contains proprietary and confidential information and * remains the unpublished property of Open Market, Inc. Use, * disclosure, or reproduction is prohibited except as permitted by * express written license agreement with Open Market, Inc. * * Bill Snapper * snap...@openmarket.com This would appear to me to be "explicitly disclaimed" as not following the LICENSE.TERMS license. And also certainly not following the DFSG. While I believe this conflict was an error in the initial release of this code (nearly 20 years ago), I also don't see how this could be resolved without an explicit relicensing by Open Market. This may also impact other fcgi packages in Debian.