> > -------- Missatge reenviat -------- > > De: Ansgar Burchardt <ans...@debian.org> > > DFSG #1 specifically only requires "may not restrict any party from > > selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate > > software distribution containing programs from several different > > sources". > > > > (And DFSG #6 only talks about "making use" and not redistribution > > anyway.)
Ansgar, you have not addressed any of the points I have raised. You quote DFSG #1, which means that Debian itself does not infringe Artistic License 1.0. I said: "Debian-based distros themselves are not threatened because they are larger in scope".[1] You say it: DFSG #6 only talks about "making use" and not redistribution. This is exactly the problem: making use. Artistic License 1.0 does not allow making use in specific fields of endeavor. This affects Debian users. You have not answered the question, whether the requirement to not sell individual software is against DFSG #6. Perhaps the FTP masters are not the competent body to judge DFSG compliance? I do not read that function in your delegation message.[2] According to your wiki page, it looks like you are only concerned "In the case of the package potentially leaving Debian liable to lawsuits".[3] I think you have not read the report properly. If full DFSG compliance is among your duties, I believe you should reopen this bug. Otherwise, I will reassign to the body I believe is competent. -- [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=854825#5 [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2012/10/msg00004.html [3] https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/FTPMaster?action=recall&rev=43
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
