Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?

2009-04-08 Thread MJ Ray
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

Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?

2009-04-08 Thread Florian Weimer
* 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

Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?

2009-02-26 Thread MJ Ray
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/

Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?

2009-02-26 Thread Adrian Bunk
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

Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?

2009-02-25 Thread Adrian Bunk
- 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

Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?

2009-02-25 Thread Josselin Mouette
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

Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?

2009-02-25 Thread Benjamin M. A'Lee
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

Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?

2009-02-25 Thread Simon Josefsson
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

Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?

2009-02-25 Thread Adrian Bunk
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

Re: Why is OpenSSL not in non-free?

2009-02-25 Thread Josselin Mouette
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