Nathanael Nerode <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [GPL/LGPL addressed in an earlier thread.] > The Academic Free License does not have > permission to modify. The LaTeX Project Public License does not have > permission to modify.
I think AFL is not a DFSG-free licence because of its excessive Mutual Termination for Patent Action clause that contaminates other software. It also seems to use copyright to try to enforce a sort of 'super-trademark' which I suspect breaks guidelines somehow. LPPL is a rather more complicated licence with which I'm not particularly familiar, but this wouldn't be its first DFSGish problem, would it? [...] > We've already *got* non-free software in Debian, namely the license > texts above. In fact people are already arguing exactly what you said. > This would simply be more honest about it. Instead, we should reject the broken reasoning that supports the above claim, such as exaggeratedly claiming 'most' licences do this. There may be a few licences that are buggy about this and to which we want to grant a limited-time exception, but that is not unusual. Use a GR for only that, not a permanent foundation document edit. > Care to craft another solution? [...] No, I've no interest in making another solution looking for a problem. Attempting to make this black and white by changing our promise seems likely to introduce as many conflicts as it removes. Even if we could change the licence texts, we couldn't change them, so this is an exercise in pointlessness. Regards, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
