allan1956 writes: > Thanks for some insights between OSI and DFSG > I certianly didn't mean to imply that DFSG would accept just because OSI > did. > >From a process and end-goal perspective they appear to be different > > Though from a legal perspective I respect rossen (who has left OSI) and > assume his evaluation that the DFA/FAR clause in question did not violate > the guidelines/definition for the OSSI and it appears the APPL (Apple) > licenses would be a pretty good indicator, but as you say nothing more then > an indicator > > Curious quesiton, is there any OSI approved license that DFSG has > rejected/disapproved as not compliant with the guidelines? > (Setting aside nonGPL compliant licenses and GPL compliancy issues of > course)
http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses lists several such licenses -- compare to http://www.opensource.org/licenses/. Notable examples are the APL, MPL, OSL and RPSL; there may be others derived from MPL that also fail DFSG, and I would argue that QPL has been settled as not DFSG-free. Michael Poole -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]