Rob Lanphier wrote:
I would really like someone to map one of the cited problems with the RPSL to a stated requirement in the DFSG.
It's understandably frustrating to come into a debian-legal discussion about a license without having been on the list for a while, since in fact we don't usually reference DFS guidelines by name.
Most problems with licenses map either to DFSG 1 (distribution) or DFSG 3 (modified versions). A key part of discussions here is deciding whether restrictions imposed on licensees raise the bar too high for them to realistically exercise the freedom to distribute and modify. When a license says, "You can distribute as long as you do X, Y, and Z", we need to evaluate whether X, Y and Z are too heavy a restriction to be acceptable under DFSG 1.
That just makes everyone here believe that there will be an endless stream of manufactured excuses as to why future versions of the RPSL will also not be considered Debian-free.
I don't think our project has any interest in keeping RPSL-licensed packages out of Debian. We don't usually like new licenses, not least because they make us slog through a lot of legalese and have long boring discussions about various minutiae. But if a package is Free Software, it's usually accepted into Debian.
It's also probably worth waiting until there's at least a draft summary of the license before responding or making changes to the license. Discussions like this take time.
~ESP
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
