<quote who="Steve Langasek"> > Above and beyond the issue of distributing code without proper license > notices, the APSL 2.0 is not, in the opinion of many (and AFAICT, > according to the consensus of the debian-legal mailing list), a free > license under the DFSG.
Hi, my apologies for the late response. After the original report came in, I had a moment of doubt, and went back to check through the APSL 2.0. I came to pretty much the same conclusion (but I do think there needs to be some kind of review of the DFSG and commonly used new licenses, cf. Matthew's reply, yada yada). Here's what I'm going to do about it: * Propose that we remove howl from the archive in its entirety. It is not the most beautiful implementation, and it does not have enormous buy-in throughout the FOSS community so far (only 31 rdepends in sid atm). * Talk to the Debian GNOME team about how much pain this will inflict on them, offer to buy beer for them, etc. * Make a public statement about howl's removal, in the hopes of inspiring new, Free implementations to be finished (or written). "When there's public debate and mass hysteria, that's when the patches roll in." - Michael Meeks Thanks, - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2005: Canberra, Australia http://linux.conf.au/ http://www.xach.com/debian-users-are-beatniks.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
