Re: DFSG conform OSI licenses
Soeren Sonnenburg wrote: the recent discussion about 'Firebird being in main' caused even more confusion on my side, as the sites [1], [2] (which I consider the debian-official statement wrt. which license is DFSG compliant) do not list the MPL as a DFSG conform license but as DFSG-incompatible [1]. The only official statements about DFSG compliance are made by the ftpmasters. Well this is not too helpful. I would wish that licenses that are acceptable are all officially listed somewhere (here? http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ ). Also each rejected license should be documented (with the reasons why it is conflicting). Else it is hard to decide / understand whether a package should go to main. I've fixed the incorrect entry in the wiki and moved the MPL to the list of DFSG-compatible licenses (including links to archived postings by an FTP master) Cheers, Moritz -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG conform OSI licenses
On 03/09/2007, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Le dimanche 02 septembre 2007 à 13:46 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit : No, GFDL'ed stuff got approved before a few people managed to change the DFSG by disguising that as editorial changes. Only you and Anthony Towns believe the changes were not editorial. Just for the record, I also believe and believed that it was not an editorial change. (BTW, I voted for it because I think it makes no sense to try to draw a line between programs and other kinds of data) -- Jens Peter Secher. _DD6A 05B0 174E BFB2 D4D9 B52E 0EE5 978A FE63 E8A1 jpsecher gmail com_. A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion. Q. Why is top posting bad?
Re: DFSG conform OSI licenses
On Mon, 2007-09-03 at 22:37 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:56:23 +0200 Soeren Sonnenburg wrote: [...] Anyway I below quote both the OSI open source definition and DFSG and as no one pointed me to any analysis on what could cause incompatibilities I am now just commenting on the parts below. In summary I think that the OSI's open source definition is in some points even more strict than the DFSG (e.g. 10. does not exist in debian) and thus I would expect most of the software coming under a open source license to be DFSG OK too. [...] Therefore I fail to see why *any* program under satisfying OSI's 10 points on OSS is not DFSG conform and so I would claim any of the 60 OSI-OSS licenses is OK. Now please prove me wrong. The main differences between Debian and OSI do not lie in the letter of the DFSG and of the OSD. The two sets of items are indeed similar. The main differences are in the ways the two sets of items are *interpreted* by the two organizations. The Debian Project explicitly states that the DFSG are *guidelines* and interprets them to decide whether a *package* is or is not Free Software. Thanks a lot for pointing that out. OSI based its OSD on the DFSG, but treats it as a *definition*, that is to say, a set a *rules* whose letter, it seems, must be met, in order for a *license* to be *approved* (OSI-certified) as Open Source. However OSI has begun to interpret the OSD in such a relaxed way, that it seems almost any license even vaguely resembling something acceptable gets approved, sooner or later... If I understand this correctly, it is just the different way of interpreting these rules that make some of the OSI licenses conflict with the DFSG. I really don't like that ... I still don't see how/where the debian interpretation is more strict but I can nevertheless not understand why there is no consensus as this is just not a desirable situation if someone chooses to license a program as open source - which will then still not make it into `open source distributions' such as debian. So I would want to know which of the osi-open source licenses are not DFSG OK. IMHO, the term Open Source has gradually become totally meaningless, because of this we-certify-everything attitude of OSI (and, ironically, because of the success that the very term gained: everyone now uses and abuses the term Open Source to mean anything, just since it's a trendy term...). Actually OSI recognized that it is not at all a good idea to have these 60+ licenses lying around and they are trying to clean up: http://www.opensource.org/proliferation#comment-1 http://opensource.org/osi3.0/proliferation-report Also they are may (will be?) enforcing that only osi-certified open source licenses are allowed to be called open source: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070622-osi-to-take-more-active-role-in-open-source-definition-enforcement.html So things may improve. Now, what is worse is that I fear the Debian Project is following OSI's steps down the same slippery slope. Debian has begun stretching the DFSG and accepting stuff that IMO should have never entered the main archive (GFDL-ed documents without unmodifiable parts, CC-by-v3.0- and CC-by-sa-v3.0- licensed works, to name but a few...). My concern is that, sooner or later, even accepted in Debian main will become meaningless (from a Freeness standpoint, I mean)... :-( And that makes me sad. Well I don't think it is that bad... Soeren -- Sometimes, there's a moment as you're waking, when you become aware of the real world around you, but you're still dreaming. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: DFSG conform OSI licenses
On Sat, 2007-09-08 at 15:18 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: On Thu, 6 Sep 2007 20:13:56 -0700 Rick Moen wrote: Quoting Francesco Poli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): [Comparison of DFSG and OSD:] OSI based its OSD on the DFSG More specifically, Bruce Perens wrote [...] Yes, that's the whole story in more detail, thanks for expanding my summary. (Incidentally, Debian should consider updating DFSG to incorporate wording similar to that of OSD#10.) Yes, I agree. /me to ... [...] However OSI has begun to interpret the OSD in such a relaxed way, that it seems almost any license even vaguely resembling something acceptable gets approved, sooner or later... I strongly dispute your assertion, having been active on OSI's license-discuss mailing list for years and participated in pretty much every evaluation there (while having been mostly a lurker here). Would you mind please citing a few examples? Well, my opinion is that MPL, CDDL, QPL, APSL, and PHP Licenses (to name a few) should *not* have been certified. Please note that this is *my* own opinion, shared by other debian-legal regulars in some cases, but not necessarily in all of them. Moreover, I should re-stress the usual disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. What I find really unfortunate is that whenever a new license appears it is completely unclear how it relates to the other open source licenses. I mean it is great that the fsf at least has a page listing which license is in their opinion GPL compatible (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html) but it is already unfortunate that licenses conflict ( discussed for the GPL at http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html ). In my eyes the newly OSI should also provide a license compatibility matrix and each new license to be certified should clearly state how it relates to all the other oss licenses... For example I really don't know how the CPL (IBM-PL) relates to the MPL, CDDL etc... [...] (and, ironically, because of the success that the very term gained: everyone now uses and abuses the term Open Source to mean anything, just since it's a trendy term...). The abuse of the term by, e.g., Centric CRM is surely not OSI's fault. They vocally oppose it, for one thing. And, actually, attempting to do so is starting to emerge as a losing ploy, because it brings bad publicity. I'm glad that something is being done to fight against misuse of the term Open Source, but I see little evidence that misusing it brings bad publicity (even assuming that there *exists* any form of publicity which qualifies as bad...). I see and hear many many people who are ignorant about the meanings of the terms Open Source software and Free Software. Well, the majority of them (that is: of ignorant people) seem to only have heard about something called Open Source and, since they do not understand what it means, they misuse it and abuse it in all contexts... Well of course most of the people have better things to do (read they just want to get their work done) than to care about licenses. So they just want to make their software open source such that others can potentially benefit and so do they... nevertheless if OSI is enforcing the correct use of that term more strictly its value will increase a lot... Soeren -- Sometimes, there's a moment as you're waking, when you become aware of the real world around you, but you're still dreaming. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: DFSG conform OSI licenses
Quoting Francesco Poli ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): [Comparison of DFSG and OSD:] OSI based its OSD on the DFSG More specifically, Bruce Perens wrote the latter document first, and then copied it wholesale with trivial modifications to create the former (The license instead of The license of a Debian component, and shall not rather than may not, and must not be specific to a product instead of must not be specific to Debian in a couple of items). Later, I believe, there were two other minor divergences: OSI added some additional safeguards to those of DFSG#2 about separately available source code, taken primarily from the text of GPLv2. And, in reaction to proposals of clickwrap software licences, OSI added the OSD#10 requirement (licence must be technology-neutral). (Incidentally, Debian should consider updating DFSG to incorporate wording similar to that of OSD#10.) ...but treats it as a *definition*, that is to say, a set a *rules* whose letter, it seems, must be met, in order for a *license* to be *approved* (OSI-certified) as Open Source. This is true, but please note that approval is not endorsement, and OSI deprecates some because they're dumb in particular ways. Its process for classifying licences into recommended, less recommended, and are you kidding? is slow, on account of bickering from those whose oxen are getting gored (my interpretation, anyway). However OSI has begun to interpret the OSD in such a relaxed way, that it seems almost any license even vaguely resembling something acceptable gets approved, sooner or later... I strongly dispute your assertion, having been active on OSI's license-discuss mailing list for years and participated in pretty much every evaluation there (while having been mostly a lurker here). Would you mind please citing a few examples? IMHO, the term Open Source has gradually become totally meaningless, because of this we-certify-everything attitude of OSI I know of not even one example of same. To the contrary, I was one of several license-discuss participants who helped OSI reach consensus to reject MPL 1.1 + Exhibit B badgeware licences, for example. (and, ironically, because of the success that the very term gained: everyone now uses and abuses the term Open Source to mean anything, just since it's a trendy term...). The abuse of the term by, e.g., Centric CRM is surely not OSI's fault. They vocally oppose it, for one thing. And, actually, attempting to do so is starting to emerge as a losing ploy, because it brings bad publicity. -- Cheers,English is essentially a text parser's way of getting Rick Moen faster processors built. [EMAIL PROTECTED]-- John M. Ford, http://ccil.org/~cowan/essential.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG conform OSI licenses
Le dimanche 02 septembre 2007 à 13:46 +0200, Marco d'Itri a écrit : No, GFDL'ed stuff got approved before a few people managed to change the DFSG by disguising that as editorial changes. Only you and Anthony Towns believe the changes were not editorial. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: DFSG conform OSI licenses
On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 21:56 +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Soeren Sonnenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 12:05 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: The only official statements about DFSG compliance are made by the ftpmasters. Well this is not too helpful. I would wish that licenses that are acceptable are all officially listed somewhere (here? http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ ). Also each rejected license should be documented (with the reasons why it is conflicting). Else it is hard to decide / understand whether a package should go to main. Wishing ain't going to make it happen. The following problems prevent it: well lets at least *try* to do it. 1. inspecting the debian/copyright file manually is the only reliable way to detect which licence(s) apply to a package. ISTR we were quite conservative in compiling the legal/licenses/ list, only listing those most common or clearest cases; I am only asking for OSI certified licenses. I think it is worth supporting licenses that are officially termed open source (and give people a chance of understanding which part of the license makes it impossible for being in debian main). Anyway having a look at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical list 'only' 60 licenses. While I personally think 60 licenses should be more than enough, I understand debian will accept a lot more. 2. rejections are seldom that clear-cut and public; This is OK to me if the package comes under a non official OSS license. 3. *packages* are rejected, not *licenses*; Of course... illegal shortcut my bad. 4. after all that, ftpmaster decisions can be surprising and sometimes even direct 'why?' questions are not answered in public - the most recent one I recall was about the MPL and Electronic Distribution Mechanisms http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00223.html (which I've yet to act on.) Well at least that part of the MPL does not seem to be a problem, as #3.2 of the MPL says and debian releases are shipped on CD/DVDs w/ the source Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License either on the same media as an Executable version or via an accepted Electronic Distribution Mechanism to anyone to whom you made an Executable version available;[...] I am not sure what happened to #2.1 from http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html though... [...] Anyway I below quote both the OSI open source definition and DFSG and as no one pointed me to any analysis on what could cause incompatibilities I am now just commenting on the parts below. In summary I think that the OSI's open source definition is in some points even more strict than the DFSG (e.g. 10. does not exist in debian) and thus I would expect most of the software coming under a open source license to be DFSG OK too. The only conflicting item I see is item 2, which is exactly the problem with the MPL. However if the argument above holds for the MPL I don't see why it does not hold for all OSI certified licenses, i.e. debian distributes the source code together with the program. Therefore I fail to see why *any* program under satisfying OSI's 10 points on OSS is not DFSG conform and so I would claim any of the 60 OSI-OSS licenses is OK. Now please prove me wrong. Soeren 1. Free Redistribution (OSI) The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. vs Free Redistribution (debian) - OK The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. 2. Source Code (OSI) The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed. vs Source Code (debian) - NOT OK if program is not distributed with source The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. 3. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. vs Derived Works (debian) - OK The license
Re: DFSG conform OSI licenses
On Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:56:23 +0200 Soeren Sonnenburg wrote: [...] Anyway I below quote both the OSI open source definition and DFSG and as no one pointed me to any analysis on what could cause incompatibilities I am now just commenting on the parts below. In summary I think that the OSI's open source definition is in some points even more strict than the DFSG (e.g. 10. does not exist in debian) and thus I would expect most of the software coming under a open source license to be DFSG OK too. [...] Therefore I fail to see why *any* program under satisfying OSI's 10 points on OSS is not DFSG conform and so I would claim any of the 60 OSI-OSS licenses is OK. Now please prove me wrong. The main differences between Debian and OSI do not lie in the letter of the DFSG and of the OSD. The two sets of items are indeed similar. The main differences are in the ways the two sets of items are *interpreted* by the two organizations. The Debian Project explicitly states that the DFSG are *guidelines* and interprets them to decide whether a *package* is or is not Free Software. OSI based its OSD on the DFSG, but treats it as a *definition*, that is to say, a set a *rules* whose letter, it seems, must be met, in order for a *license* to be *approved* (OSI-certified) as Open Source. However OSI has begun to interpret the OSD in such a relaxed way, that it seems almost any license even vaguely resembling something acceptable gets approved, sooner or later... IMHO, the term Open Source has gradually become totally meaningless, because of this we-certify-everything attitude of OSI (and, ironically, because of the success that the very term gained: everyone now uses and abuses the term Open Source to mean anything, just since it's a trendy term...). Now, what is worse is that I fear the Debian Project is following OSI's steps down the same slippery slope. Debian has begun stretching the DFSG and accepting stuff that IMO should have never entered the main archive (GFDL-ed documents without unmodifiable parts, CC-by-v3.0- and CC-by-sa-v3.0- licensed works, to name but a few...). My concern is that, sooner or later, even accepted in Debian main will become meaningless (from a Freeness standpoint, I mean)... :-( And that makes me sad. Disclaimers: IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgp1ScEplHW9v.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DFSG conform OSI licenses
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well this is not too helpful. I would wish that licenses that are acceptable are all officially listed somewhere (here? With very good approximation, you can be sure that packages in main have acceptable licenses, and work from this knowledge. So this means, MPL, CPL == IBM PL are all DFSG conform licenses. I belive they are. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG conform OSI licenses
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 12:58:45 +0200 (CEST) Marco d'Itri wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well this is not too helpful. I would wish that licenses that are acceptable are all officially listed somewhere (here? With very good approximation, you can be sure that packages in main have acceptable licenses, and work from this knowledge. I disagree that this can be a good approximation, since assuming it is would imply that DFSG-compliance bugs (almost) never happen. I instead think that those kind of bugs happen more frequently than one would hope... One example is all the GFDL-ed stuff that got approved before realizing that it does not comply with the DFSG. Even if I disagree with GR-2006-001 outcome (option 1 was the right choice, in my opinion), still, many GFDL-ed documents do have unmodifiable parts (such as Invariant Sections, Front/Back Cover Texts, and so forth) and have been (or are being) moved to non-free. So this means, MPL, CPL == IBM PL are all DFSG conform licenses. I belive they are. At least as far as the MPL is concerned, I disagree. Disclaimers: IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpjZHr7VUrNf.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DFSG conform OSI licenses
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I disagree that this can be a good approximation, since assuming it is would imply that DFSG-compliance bugs (almost) never happen. Indeed, they do not. One example is all the GFDL-ed stuff that got approved before realizing that it does not comply with the DFSG. No, GFDL'ed stuff got approved before a few people managed to change the DFSG by disguising that as editorial changes. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG conform OSI licenses
On Sun, 2 Sep 2007 13:46:21 +0200 (CEST) Marco d'Itri wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] One example is all the GFDL-ed stuff that got approved before realizing that it does not comply with the DFSG. No, GFDL'ed stuff got approved before a few people managed to change the DFSG by disguising that as editorial changes. If you refer to GR-2004-003, the DFSG were left untouched by that GR. Only the SC was edited, in order to make it more clear that the DFSG must apply to anything in main, rather than to programs only. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpVRYWZK2xta.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: DFSG conform OSI licenses
Soeren Sonnenburg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 12:05 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: The only official statements about DFSG compliance are made by the ftpmasters. Well this is not too helpful. I would wish that licenses that are acceptable are all officially listed somewhere (here? http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ ). Also each rejected license should be documented (with the reasons why it is conflicting). Else it is hard to decide / understand whether a package should go to main. Wishing ain't going to make it happen. The following problems prevent it: 1. inspecting the debian/copyright file manually is the only reliable way to detect which licence(s) apply to a package. ISTR we were quite conservative in compiling the legal/licenses/ list, only listing those most common or clearest cases; 2. rejections are seldom that clear-cut and public; 3. *packages* are rejected, not *licenses*; 4. after all that, ftpmaster decisions can be surprising and sometimes even direct 'why?' questions are not answered in public - the most recent one I recall was about the MPL and Electronic Distribution Mechanisms http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00223.html (which I've yet to act on.) The easiest way to decide whether a package should go to main (as far copyright is concerned) is: 1. find another package already in main under exactly the same licence or licence combination - legal/licences/ may help you here and may be made more useful for this soon, while a search of site:packages.debian.org along with some unique string from the licence may also help now; 2. make sure you're not doing any of the REJECT-FAQ things. [...] It was after this that the DFSG-revisionists began to infest debian-legal@ and started inventing new criteria for DFSG compliance. Is it know (ie. summarized somewhere) what these modifications are and with which DFSG items they conflict? There are no modifications since 1.0 and Marco d'Itri is a DFSG-revisionist. For example, applying the DFSG to all of debian seems to have been the intention since at least Bruce Perens, yet Marco d'Itri seems to support allowing unmodifiable manual texts. There are some tests discussed on -legal sometimes, but they are 'smoke tests' that suggest possible problems, not proof of problems. See Q.9 in the DFSG FAQ for some: http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq 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]
DFSG conform OSI licenses
Dear all, the recent discussion about 'Firebird being in main' caused even more confusion on my side, as the sites [1], [2] (which I consider the debian-official statement wrt. which license is DFSG compliant) do not list the MPL as a DFSG conform license but as DFSG-incompatible [1]. Also the conclusion drawn in [3] and [4] seem to contradict. More generally, as I understand the ten items that lead to the OSI open source definition [5] are based on the DFSG. Now I wonder which extra requirements the DFSG (suddenly?) include such that certain open source projects choosing a particular OSI license cannot enter debian main. On the other hand I am quite unhappy that more and more conflicting open source licenses seem to appear making code exchange problematic :-( Anyway I am asking as I wanted to package COIN-OR ( http://www.coin-or.org/ ) and as most of the packages are CPL licensed and the CPL is listed as 'status unsettled' in [1] and now suddenly the MPL seems OK [4] I am hoping the the CPL and all other OSI based licenses are too. Soeren [1] http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses [2] http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ [3] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html [4] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00215.html [5] http://opensource.org/docs/osd -- Sometimes, there's a moment as you're waking, when you become aware of the real world around you, but you're still dreaming. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: DFSG conform OSI licenses
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the recent discussion about 'Firebird being in main' caused even more confusion on my side, as the sites [1], [2] (which I consider the debian-official statement wrt. which license is DFSG compliant) do not list the MPL as a DFSG conform license but as DFSG-incompatible [1]. The only official statements about DFSG compliance are made by the ftpmasters. Especially the wiki contains obvious bullshit, e.g. Postfix is licensed under the IBM PL and I do not remember anybody ever seriously contesting its freeness. And while some of the debian-legal licensing kooks mutter about the MPL from time to time, there are many MPL-only packages in the archive and I do not subscribe to the theory that the ftpmasters are idiots who can miss licensing bugs for years (i.e. when a different majority forms on debian-legal@). More generally, as I understand the ten items that lead to the OSI open source definition [5] are based on the DFSG. Now I wonder which extra requirements the DFSG (suddenly?) include such that certain open source projects choosing a particular OSI license cannot enter debian main. Actually, soon after being created OSI started relaxing their interpretation of the DFSG to allow licenses which were widely believed by the Debian community to be problematic. IIRC they also made minor changes to the OSD. It was after this that the DFSG-revisionists began to infest debian-legal@ and started inventing new criteria for DFSG compliance. -- ciao, Marco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DFSG conform OSI licenses
On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 12:05 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: the recent discussion about 'Firebird being in main' caused even more confusion on my side, as the sites [1], [2] (which I consider the debian-official statement wrt. which license is DFSG compliant) do not list the MPL as a DFSG conform license but as DFSG-incompatible [1]. The only official statements about DFSG compliance are made by the ftpmasters. Well this is not too helpful. I would wish that licenses that are acceptable are all officially listed somewhere (here? http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ ). Also each rejected license should be documented (with the reasons why it is conflicting). Else it is hard to decide / understand whether a package should go to main. Especially the wiki contains obvious bullshit, e.g. Postfix is licensed under the IBM PL and I do not remember anybody ever seriously contesting its freeness. And while some of the debian-legal licensing kooks mutter about the MPL from time to time, there are many MPL-only packages in the archive and I do not subscribe to the theory that the ftpmasters are idiots who can miss licensing bugs for years (i.e. when a different majority forms on debian-legal@). So this means, MPL, CPL == IBM PL are all DFSG conform licenses. More generally, as I understand the ten items that lead to the OSI open source definition [5] are based on the DFSG. Now I wonder which extra requirements the DFSG (suddenly?) include such that certain open source projects choosing a particular OSI license cannot enter debian main. Actually, soon after being created OSI started relaxing their interpretation of the DFSG to allow licenses which were widely believed by the Debian community to be problematic. IIRC they also made minor changes to the OSD. It was after this that the DFSG-revisionists began to infest debian-legal@ and started inventing new criteria for DFSG compliance. Is it know (ie. summarized somewhere) what these modifications are and with which DFSG items they conflict? Thanks, Soeren -- For the one fact about the future of which we can be certain is that it will be utterly fantastic. -- Arthur C. Clarke, 1962 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
