I can’t speak for anyone else but a license which makes special exception for the Debian distro only strikes me as potentially not in conformance with the DFSG (in particular, #8 - see https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines <https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines>).
Best, Jim > On May 13, 2016, at 9:00 AM, William Whyte <wwh...@securityinnovation.com> > wrote: > > Hi Ian, > > Again, apologies for the delay. So would it work for you if the NTRU license > explicitly said that Debian distributions, downstreams, and users may use and > modify the software and redistribute as part of a Debian distribution? > > Cheers, > > William > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk > <mailto:ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>> wrote: > William Whyte writes ("Re: Questions about libntru license/ntru patent > status"): > > Sorry for having let this drift for so long. Way back at the start > > of the discussion, as we got into the discussion of the FOSS > > Exception, there seems to have been an assumption that Tor would > > depend on that FOSS Exception to use NTRU. In fact, our plan was to > > make a Tor-specific carveout along the lines of: > > Thanks for your reply. > > > "The NTRU source code and patents can be freely used and distributed > > when used as part of the quantum-safe-ntor protocol as specified in [doc > > ref] and its successor documents designated as such by the Tor Project." > > I'm sorry to say that I don't think Debian would want to rely on such > a permission. > > The reason is that it depends on the code actually implementing the > specified protocol. But, we want our downstreams and users to be able > to modify the software - including, to make it speak a different > protocol. > > Debian is looking for a licence that would work for Debian and all our > derivative distributions, downstreams, and users, which would allow > all of us to use and modify the software. > > On the other hand Debian does not need a licence that works if some > other library, besides the NTRU library, is used to implement the > algorithms. > > So I think the approach of a licence attached to the source code is > much more likely to be helpful. If I remember the previous > discussion, that licence was very close to suitable, with some > problems in the wording of the `FOSS exception' (ie, the exception to > permit use with non-GPL licences). > > As you quote in your email I suggested a wording based on a GPL > Additional Permission. I think that is what your `FOSS exception' was > trying to do. There are many ways of doing something like that. I > hope you will adopt something suitable - since I think our goals are > fairly well aligned. > > Thanks, > Ian. >
