> Hello Vincent, > > On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 22:29:22 -0700 > Vincent Cheng <vch...@debian.org> wrote: > > >> >> License: RDS-Data-Security >> >> License to copy and use this software is granted provided that >> >> it is identified as the "RSA Data Security, Inc. MD5 Message >> >> Digest Algorithm" in all material mentioning or referencing this >> >> software or this function. >> >> . >> >> License is also granted to make and use derivative works >> >> provided that such works are identified as "derived from the RSA >> >> Data Security, Inc. MD5 Message Digest Algorithm" in all >> >> material mentioning or referencing the derived work. >> > >> > 1. I believe this clause forces Debian to mention RSA Data Security >> > on every html page and in every place where CodeBlock is mentioned. >> > Isn't it? >> > >> > 2. Your main code is GPL v3 (note, 3d version, not 3+, because there >> > are several files which don't allow "any later version"). But GPL is >> > not compatible with such advertising clauses, see famous BSD-4 vs >> > GPL example: >> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OriginalBSD >> > >> > I cc debian-legal, these guys will correct me, if I'm wrong. >> >> Ah, you're right that the RSA license contains wording that is quite >> similar to 4-clause BSD's advertising clause. I've filed #826379 to >> keep track of this issue, and will report a bug upstream as well. >> >> I do want to point out that 4-clause BSD is actually DFSG-compatible >> and suitable for Debian main [1], so there's still no reason to >> believe that the RSA md5 license violates the DFSG as you originally >> claim, even though it contains an advertising clause. Codeblocks is >> non-distributable merely due to GPL's incompatibility with the RSA md5 >> license (not because it's non-free).
> 2. This license is much more restrictive then BSD one. It's not only > require you to mention original author in your advertise. It says you > must attribute CodeBlocks as "derived from the RSA Data Security, Inc. > MD5 Message Digest Algorithm" in "_all_ material _mentioning_ or > referencing the derived work". As for me this is inappropriate for Free > Software. (e.g. I don't think it will pass The dissident test) > > But yes, it's somewhere on the edge between free and non-free, so other > person could judge a little bit different and consider it as > DFSG-compliant (but still GPL-incompatible). As far as I understood it BSD-4-clause is only free because the Regents of the UC dropped the advertising clause in ftp://ftp.cs.berkeley.edu/pub/4bsd/README.Impt.License.Change. So IMHO the current case is clearly non-free... -- tobi
