Michael Scheidell <scheid...@secnap.net> writes: > On 4/15/10 5:35 PM, Micah Anderson wrote: >> M >> "The Distributed Checksum Clearinghouse source carries a license that is >> free to organizations that do not sell filtering devices or services >> except to their own users and that participate in the global DCC >> network. . . you may not redistribute modified, "fixed," or "improved" >> versions of the source or binaries. You also can't call it your own or >> blame anyone for the results of using it." >> > Which seems silly for debian to remove it, since many of the > blacklists in SA are by default, licensed similar (free for non > commercial use, paid if > xxx queries). maybe debian should look > through and remove ALL 'dual licensed' software, and when you install > SA from the RPM's, disable the dual licensed RBL's.
You misunderstand Debian's role and license guidelines. Debian is a software distributor, and as such it is not silly for Debian to stop distributing software (ie. dcc) when distributing that software violates its rules. The blacklists enabled in SA by default are not software, they are simply hostnames that the Spamassassin software uses. Configured hostnames are not distribution restricted, and arguably not even 'software'. There is no software distribution restriction involved in having those blacklists enabled in SA that violates Debian's software distribution terms. The software that is distributed is Spamassassin, which has a fully compliant Debian software distribution license, not the blacklists that are enabled by default in Spamassassin. The blacklists do have a restricted use license, but that is something else altogether. The software 'dcc', is software, and with it carries a license which restricts its distribution, and thus Debian, as a software distributor, has to make decisions based on its own policy, if it is willing to accept such a distribution restriction. Debian has the DFSG, which is its guidelines for what is acceptable for distribution, and the license that the software 'dcc' carries does not satisfy those criteria. > Or, hey, lets pretend the people installing debian are smart enough to > be able to make up their own mind if they fit the free license model. People are free to do that, Debian wont distribute it for those people, but people are free to put whatever they like on their systems. > it IS a good service, and SA 3.3x supports the reputation query > directly now in the commercial license. > Some things to understand, (normal language vs legal talk) I believe it is a good service. If I could get updated software, with security upgrades, from Debian, I would use it. micah
