Mario Castelan Castro <mario...@gnu.org> writes: > I don't think the problem is solved, We cannot say that this [Artistic > license 1.0] is a free software license because it is too vague; some > passages are too clever for their own good, and their meaning is not > clear (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense).
Even when there might be better licenses, the old Artistic License as used by simutrans is accepted by Debian as a free software license. So this is not a problem for us. > I would rather suggesst the simutrans developers to update their license > to the Artistic License 2.0 or to include an "or any later version" > clause. The AL 2.0 keeps the essence of the old version with a clean > wording. Didn't you do so and they rejected that idea? I admit I would reject such idea as well if asked in the way you did (the "Open Letter"). In any case, that is not an issue for Debian and should if at all be discussed upstream. Regards, Ansgar -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
