Gervase Markham <gerv-gm...@gerv.net> writes: > On 21/02/12 10:36, MJ Ray wrote:
>> Secondly, it allows retrospective amendment: I'm sure such licences >> have been rejected in the past (often called the "tentacles of evil" >> test). Non-permanent licences that could start failing DFSG 1 or 3 at >> an arbitrary-but-unknown future date are at least a practical problem >> for stuff that has releases we want to archive forever. >> This isn't the usual situation for "or any later version" licences >> because there's the option of continuing with the current version. >> So, as it makes it non-free, the rest of the posted argument fails. > DFSG 4: > "The license may require derived works to carry a different name or > version number from the original software." > Are you saying that if a license requires unilateral renaming, it's OK > under DFSG 4, but if it requires renaming under certain circumstances (a > less strict requirement), it's not OK under DFSG 4? Or is it OK to > require renaming under certain circumstances as long as those > circumstances are sufficiently clear at the time of receiving the > software? I disagree with MJ's analysis that this license fails the DFSG. I agree with MJ's analysis that it shouldn't be allowed in the archive. It's possible to have licenses that are DFSG-free but unsupportable due to their impact on our stable maintenance policies, and I think this is a good example of such a license. If I were packaging such a piece of software, I would proactively remove that clause from the license (nothing seems to prevent me from doing so), which would resolve the whole problem. That's a little like proactively renaming software covered by trademark, but less intrusive and therefore easier to decide to do. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8762f0t9fb....@windlord.stanford.edu
