On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 21:56 +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > Soeren Sonnenburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, 2007-09-01 at 12:05 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote: > > > The only official statements about DFSG compliance are made by the > > > ftpmasters. > > > > Well this is not too helpful. I would wish that licenses that are > > acceptable are all officially listed somewhere (here? > > http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ ). Also each rejected license > > should be documented (with the reasons why it is conflicting). Else it > > is hard to decide / understand whether a package should go to main. > > Wishing ain't going to make it happen. The following problems prevent it:
well lets at least *try* to do it. > 1. inspecting the debian/copyright file manually is the only reliable way > to detect which licence(s) apply to a package. ISTR we were quite > conservative in compiling the legal/licenses/ list, only listing those > most common or clearest cases; I am only asking for OSI certified licenses. I think it is worth supporting licenses that are officially termed open source (and give people a chance of understanding which part of the license makes it impossible for being in debian main). Anyway having a look at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical list 'only' 60 licenses. While I personally think 60 licenses should be more than enough, I understand debian will accept a lot more. > 2. rejections are seldom that clear-cut and public; This is OK to me if the package comes under a non official OSS license. > 3. *packages* are rejected, not *licenses*; Of course... illegal shortcut my bad. > 4. after all that, ftpmaster decisions can be surprising and sometimes > even direct 'why?' questions are not answered in public - the most recent > one I recall was about the MPL and Electronic Distribution Mechanisms > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/07/msg00223.html > (which I've yet to act on.) Well at least that part of the MPL does not seem to be a problem, as #3.2 of the MPL says and debian releases are shipped on CD/DVDs w/ the source "Any Modification which You create or to which You contribute must be made available in Source Code form under the terms of this License either on the same media as an Executable version or via an accepted Electronic Distribution Mechanism to anyone to whom you made an Executable version available;[...]" I am not sure what happened to #2.1 from http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html though... [...] Anyway I below quote both the OSI open source definition and DFSG and as no one pointed me to any analysis on what could cause incompatibilities I am now just commenting on the parts below. In summary I think that the OSI's open source definition is in some points even more strict than the DFSG (e.g. 10. does not exist in debian) and thus I would expect most of the software coming under a open source license to be DFSG OK too. The only conflicting item I see is item 2, which is exactly the problem with the MPL. However if the argument above holds for the MPL I don't see why it does not hold for all OSI certified licenses, i.e. debian distributes the source code together with the program. Therefore I fail to see why *any* program under satisfying OSI's 10 points on OSS is not DFSG conform and so I would claim any of the 60 OSI-OSS licenses is OK. Now please prove me wrong. Soeren 1. Free Redistribution (OSI) The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. vs Free Redistribution (debian) -> OK The license of a Debian component may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license may not require a royalty or other fee for such sale. 2. Source Code (OSI) The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed. vs Source Code (debian) -> NOT OK if program is not distributed with source The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. 3. Derived Works The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. vs Derived Works (debian) -> OK The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software. 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code (OSI) The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software. vs. Integrity of The Author's Source Code (debian) -> OK The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form _only_ if the license allows the distribution of patch files with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software. (This is a compromise. The Debian group encourages all authors not to restrict any files, source or binary, from being modified.) 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups (OSI) The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. vs No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups (debian) -> OK The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor (OSI) The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. vs No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor (debian) -> OK The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. 7. Distribution of License (OSI) The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties. vs Distribution of License (debian) -> OK The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties. 8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product (OSI) The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution. vs. License Must Not Be Specific to Debian (debian) -> OK The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a Debian system. If the program is extracted from Debian and used or distributed without Debian but otherwise within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the Debian system. 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software (OSI) The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software. vs. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software (debian) -> OK The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be free software. 10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral (OSI) No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface. vs. does not exist (debian) -> OK -- Sometimes, there's a moment as you're waking, when you become aware of the real world around you, but you're still dreaming.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
