Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?
Adrian Bunk b...@stusta.de wrote: On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 01:36:29PM +, MJ Ray wrote: I'd happily update http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ but I can't see how it makes it sounds as if 4-clause BSD wouldn't meet DFSG. Can you clarify? [...] Licenses currently found in Debian main include: [...] This excludes the unmodified BSD License. If the 4-clause BDS License is considered to meet the DFSG, then this should be something like 4-clause, 3-clause and 2-clause BSD License. Or just BSD License. The linked common licence is the modified BSD licence AFAIK, so I don't feel that either of those would be accurate. I've added the unmodified BSD licence with its own entry, along the lines of the wiki description. I'm pretty sure it's in debian. I've also removed some obsolete work in progress, added directions on searching the list archive, current packages and the REJECT FAQ and changed a few wordings slightly. Diff is at http://cvs.debian.org/webwml/english/legal/licenses/index.wml?root=webwmlr1=1.14r2=1.15 Hope that helps, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?
* MJ Ray: The linked common licence is the modified BSD licence AFAIK, so I don't feel that either of those would be accurate. I've added the unmodified BSD licence with its own entry, along the lines of the wiki description. I'm pretty sure it's in debian. Yes, the DFSG originally referred to the unmodified, 4-clause BSD license. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?
Adrian Bunk b...@stusta.de wrote: Could someone update http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses and http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ accordingly? Currently both pages sound as if it the 4-clause BSD licence would not meet the DFSG. I'd happily update http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ but I can't see how it makes it sounds as if 4-clause BSD wouldn't meet DFSG. Can you clarify? I don't want to encourage it because it has practical problems when combined with the GPLs, but it's OK for main. I can't update http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses well and everyone should be very reluctant to use an unattributed wiki as a primary source. I didn't find much there about 4-clause BSD either, really. Even the FSF considers it free. The FSF also considers the GFDL with invariant sections as free... Not free software. RMS claimed such a question doesn't matter, in http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/09/msg01221.html I feel it's pretty obviously not free software and it's pretty obvious why that's harmful - see: http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/fdl#general Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 01:36:29PM +, MJ Ray wrote: Adrian Bunk b...@stusta.de wrote: Could someone update http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses and http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ accordingly? Currently both pages sound as if it the 4-clause BSD licence would not meet the DFSG. I'd happily update http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ but I can't see how it makes it sounds as if 4-clause BSD wouldn't meet DFSG. Can you clarify? -- snip -- This site presents the opinion of debian-legal contributors on how certain licenses follow the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). ... Licenses currently found in Debian main include: ... - Modified BSD License ... -- snip -- This excludes the unmodified BSD License. If the 4-clause BDS License is considered to meet the DFSG, then this should be something like 4-clause, 3-clause and 2-clause BSD License. Or just BSD License. I don't want to encourage it because it has practical problems when combined with the GPLs, but it's OK for main. The encouragement is already split from the listing of what is considered to meet the DFSG below. In we encourage most maintainers to use one of the common licenses: GPL, LGPL, BSD, or Artistic you can change the BSD to something like 3-clause or 2-clause BSD. I can't update http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses well and everyone should be very reluctant to use an unattributed wiki as a primary source. I didn't find much there about 4-clause BSD either, really. ... -- snip -- === The Big DFSG-compatible Licenses ... == The 3-clause BSD License ... (This is distinct from the original, 4-clause BSD license that included an advertising requirement. The original license is now deprecated even by the BSD project.) ... -- snip -- That's the only mentioning of it. Either the 3-clause restriction should there be dropped, or the 4-clause BSD License should be listed separately (e.g. under Minor DFSG-Capable Licenses). cu Adrian -- Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. Only a promise, Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?
- the 3-clause BSD license is considered free - the 4-clause BSD license with the advertising clause is considered non-free - both the OpenSSL License and the Original SSLeay License in /usr/share/doc/libssl0.9.8/copyright contain the BSD advertising clause in its exact wording Does OpenSSL have to go to non-free, or do I miss anything? cu Adrian -- Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. Only a promise, Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?
Le mercredi 25 février 2009 à 12:46 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit : - the 4-clause BSD license with the advertising clause is considered non-free No. Even the FSF considers it free. -- .''`. Debian 5.0 Lenny has been released! : :' : `. `' Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and told `-me that if you don't install Lenny, he'd melt your brain. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:46:03PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: - the 3-clause BSD license is considered free - the 4-clause BSD license with the advertising clause is considered non-free - both the OpenSSL License and the Original SSLeay License in /usr/share/doc/libssl0.9.8/copyright contain the BSD advertising clause in its exact wording Does OpenSSL have to go to non-free, or do I miss anything? It's not GPL-compatible. This is not the same as non-free. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OriginalBSD -- Benjamin M. A'Lee || mail: b...@subvert.org.uk web: http://subvert.org.uk/~bma/ || gpg: 0xBB6D2FA0 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?
Adrian Bunk b...@stusta.de writes:
- the 3-clause BSD license is considered free
- the 4-clause BSD license with the advertising clause is considered
non-free
I don't think this holds. The advertising clause in the 4-clause BSD
license is GPL incompatible according to ('Original BSD license'):
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicense
However that doesn't mean work licensed under the 4-clause BSD license
is non-free, which is explicitly mentioned in the link above.
/Simon
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:23:56PM +0100, Josselin Mouette wrote: Le mercredi 25 février 2009 à 12:46 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit : - the 4-clause BSD license with the advertising clause is considered non-free No. Ah, OK. Could someone update http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses and http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ accordingly? Currently both pages sound as if it the 4-clause BSD licence would not meet the DFSG. Even the FSF considers it free. The FSF also considers the GFDL with invariant sections as free... cu Adrian -- Is there not promise of rain? Ling Tan asked suddenly out of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days. Only a promise, Lao Er said. Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?
Le mercredi 25 février 2009 à 14:24 +0200, Adrian Bunk a écrit : Even the FSF considers it free. The FSF also considers the GFDL with invariant sections as free... They clearly don’t consider it as a free software license. The FSF argues that documentation doesn’t need the same freedoms as software. -- .''`. Debian 5.0 Lenny has been released! : :' : `. `' Last night, Darth Vader came down from planet Vulcan and told `-me that if you don't install Lenny, he'd melt your brain. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
