Quoting Jonas Smedegaard (2017-09-07 14:47:42) > Licensing of angband-doc is listed as being Artistic 1.0, with you as > copyright holder. > > Free Software Foundation raises concerns that Artistic 1.0 is too > vague, and therefore does not consider that a Free license. Possibly > Debian is ok with it (I didn't check) but still, if you don't mind, it > seems better if you could relicense this work to use another more > generally relied upon license - e.g. Artistic 2.0 which I believe is > written in same spirit but has improved the phrases which Free > Software Foundation raised concerns about. > > Therefore: Please consider relicensing, e.g. to Artistic 2.0. > > I ran into this issue while working for PureOS, a derivative of Debian > which aims to stay close to Debian but also be endorsed by FSF as > "Free" by their slightly different rules: > https://tracker.pureos.net/T71
I now found evience of Artistic 1.0 being discussed and found sufficiently Free by Debian. I have therefore lowered severity, but still suggest to consider relicensing, as that will help keep the package included also in derivatives of Debian which seek endorsement from FSF (like PureOS). Regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
