(Please explicitly put me into the cc list) Dear debian-legal,
Following https://bugs.debian.org/1050520#12 , I am looking for your confirmation on the DFSG compatibility of a customized license that add an extra term on top of standard MIT license. This will be needed to solve https://bugs.debian.org/1050520 . The full text of the license is as follows: =========================================================== Copyright (c) [NAME] [YEAR] Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: Permission is not granted to distribute or redistribute this software, the derivative works of this software, or any of its associated files that was generated in any approach (including building machine learning models), for any purpose, without attributing the source material by including its license. The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. Note: Some of the examples include code not distributed under the terms of the MIT License. =============================================================== The license text comes from https://github.com/itay-grudev/SingleApplication/blob/a8da87d78238ac9ac92d2cda41793d4879c188b3/LICENSE . Of course, we can safely assume that the software does not include any files under "examples/" directory at this moment. Bug#1050520#12 raised three concerns on DFSG incompatibility: 1. The license contains self-contradictory terms (granting permission "without restriction" in para 1, then denying permission without attribution in paragraph 2) 2. It still appears to discriminate against ML use cases (DFSG #6 violation) 3. The attribution requirements go beyond standard MIT license requirements, creating compatibility issues with GPL and other licenses These concerns might be useful for you when considering the DFSG compatibility issue, although I have doubts on them. Thanks, Boyuan
