Re: CISST licence and DFSG

[MJ Ray]

Riley Baird wrote [apparently not citing authors]:
>> DFSG-free software usually refrain from restricting use or download.
> 
> Is this a requirement? The Microsoft Public License states:
> 
> If you use the software, you accept this license. If you do not
> accept the license, do not use the software.

It's not a requirement but IMO it's worth seeking to change if the
licence has other problems.  Usage is an act not normally restricted by
copyright so it often indicates that a licence is pretending to be a
contract or hybrid copyright/patent licence, instead of a simple
conditional copyright licence grant.

Hope that explains,
-- 
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Re: CISST licence and DFSG

[Ian Jackson]

Jochen Sprickerhof writes ("CISST licence and DFSG"):
> as part of packaging ROS [1] for Debian, I've found a file [2] under the
> CISST licence [3]. Can someone comment on the DFSG compatibility of it?

IMO this licence is DFSG-free.  I disagree with Ben Finney and
Francesco Poli.

(It's not a very good licence, though.)

Ian.