(Resending a similar mail to d-legal because my previous attempt was
rejected by the OSI listserver.)
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 and legal@canonical.
As the three institutions whose names are being taken in vain, I think
it would be good for us to have a coordinated response.
Regards,
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
