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
