On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 03:56:49PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: > Is a sunset clause DFSG free? It seems that it shouldn't be; implicit > in clause 1 at least to me is the continued right of free > distribution. From a practical matter it seems we need to allow > distribution at least through the given release cycle, but really > having to go back and remove packages from archive.debian.org seems > undesirable and non-free.
It's DFSG free if the software is still DFSG free after the sun sets. I would hope that wouldn't argue that apt is non-free software *now* being solely licensed under the GNU GPL since it is after November 15, 2000. There's nothing inherently evil about a sunset clause. It can be used for good or evil. People may even disagree about which is is which; if I write a program, and license it under the GPL, but put a clause in it that says "the GPL ceases to be in force as of December 31, 2002, after which the MIT/X11 license, reprinted below, takes effect". (Or maybe you'd call that a "sunrise" clause. Also, the software could continue to be distributed under the GPL after the date in question because the GPL cannot be retracted by the copyright holder, only no longer enforced.) What if I put a sunset clause on my software license because I state that on that date the software goes into the public domain? I reassert: a sunset clause is DFSG free if the software is still DFSG free before and after the date on the clause. -- G. Branden Robinson | I suspect Linus wrote that in a Debian GNU/Linux | complicated way only to be able to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | have that comment in there. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Lars Wirzenius
pgpLfD22LJSJe.pgp
Description: PGP signature
