The subscribers of the debian-legal list have examined all three of the proposed licenses and it seems that the consensus is that none of the licenses are Free Software licenses, according to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. You can see the thread of discussion starting at [0]. The problems that have been pointed out will need to be fixed before the software license will be judged free. It would also be a good idea to run it by debian-legal one more time, so that we can take a look over it and make sure everything is okay.
The consequences of the license of Apache being non-free (I realize it has not yet been adopted) is that it would be placed in the non-free archive, which is not a part of Debian. Software in non-free is not autobuilt for any architecture (there are 11 on Linux alone) and it does not receive the same level of quality assurance as software in main does. It is also possible that non-free will disappear soon. I am not a Debian Developer, nor do I speak for anyone but myself. I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. I have set the Mail-Followup-To: to both [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200311/msg00052.html -- Brian M. Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0x560553e7
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
