In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > I'm afraid this is definitely non-free. It forbids distribution of > modified versions on several counts:
Be patient with me. I don't see the problem, at least not yet. I wouldn't have brought the license to debian-legal if I thought it were beyond question, but some discussion will be required to convince me of your assertions. >> The DNSsafe software cannot be used or distributed separately from the >> BIND software. You only have the right to use it or distribute it as >> a bundled, integrated product. Which section of the DFSG does this violate? It prevents me from packaging things such that the DNSsafe library is a separate entity from BIND, clearly. It means that someone else can't "borrow" the DNSsafe library from BIND without negotiating a different license with RSA. However, I fail to see how this restricts distribution of modified versions of BIND in any way. >> The DNSsafe software can ONLY be used to provide authentication for >> resource records in the Domain Name System, as specified in RFC 2065 >> and successors. You cannot modify the BIND software to use the >> DNSsafe software for other purposes, or to make its cryptographic >> functions available to end-users for other uses. This is unfriendly to the free software community at large, to the extent that someone might want to use the DNSsafe code for some non-DNS purpose which this license would not cover, forcing them to negotiate a different license with RSA. But again, I don't see how this violates the DFSG... or how it in any way prevents distribution of BIND. >> If you modify the DNSsafe software itself, you cannot modify its >> documented API, [...] This one is the most problematic point for me. I'd like the API to be as free as the software, but I can't see how this violates the DFSG. We have lots of cases where free software implements one or the other side of a proprietary API, after all. Bdale
