> Markus Frosch writes ("drbdmanage EULA conforming to DFSG?"):
>> I, myself, would consider the license non-free in terms of DFSG, due to this
>> paragraph:
>>
>> > 3.4) Without prior written consent of LICENSOR or an authorized partner,
>> > LICENSEE is not allowed to:
>> > [...]
>> > b) provide commercial turn-key solutions based on the LICENSED
>> > SOFTWARE or commercial services for the LICENSED SOFTWARE or
>> > its modifications to any third party (e.g. software support or
>> > trainings).
>>
>> What's your opinion about that clause?
>
> Wow. That's horrible. This is definitely unacceptable for Debian.
>
> (I haven't read the rest of the licence. It's been suggested on
> debian-legal that this is far from the only serious problem.)
>
>> > Is DRBD Manage open source software?
>> >
>> > Yes, the license meets OSI?^@^Ys Open Source Definition, it
>> > conforms to Debian?^@^Ys social contract, it conforms to
>> > Ubuntu?^@^Ys licensing policy and it is within Launchpad?^@^Ys
>> > licensing conditions.
>
> This is clearly false as regards acceptability to Debian.
> I doubt very much that they have talked to OSI or to Ubuntu.
>
> I have CC'd one of the OSI lists. I couldn't find an appropriate list
> for Ubuntu. Maybe someone else here knows how to bring this to the
> appropriate Ubuntu people's attention ?
le...@canonical.com, I guess. That is not a mailing list, however.
