Le 2018-12-08 16:27, Greg Troxel a écrit :
I am not aware of RH/Fedora having a strong notion of licenses being adequately free. But Debian definitely does. So I think it's time toformally add DFSG-approved as a third leg. But, I think those should benoted individually, as there is no published license list and figuring out that a license is approved is hearder.
I think so.
Can Frédéric (or someone) check to see if Debian approves it? If so, moving it to the end and explaining that it's DFSG approved sounds good. If not, that's an interesting question why not.
The s/abell-94/purdue/ license is not listed on the DFSG licenses webpage ([1] https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses). Indeed, "why not" is an interesting question since we can read "The directory dialects/uw was removed for being non-DFSG" on a webpage of lsof ([2] https://sources.debian.org/copyright/license/lsof/4.86+dfsg-1/). This implies that the remaining sources are DFSG including sources licensed by Purdue.
FMHO, it could be safe to:1) rename licenses/abell-94 (out of nowhere) into licenses/purdue (used by Debian) 2) remove it from DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES because there is no strong endorsement to make it acceptable