John Nemeth <jnemeth%cue.bc.ca@localhost> writes: > } licence and will never be certified as such by the OSI or FSF. > > Who cares what the FSF thinks? OSI is the only relevant one > of the two. I think that is a possibility that this licence could > be certified by them. It has been the documented rule in pkgsrc for a very long time that licenses may be added to DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES if they have been certified Open Source by OSI or Free by FSF. (There has been a further decision by board@ to exclude AGPL from DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES.) See mk/license.mk. So far the only real problem with this approach has been boutique licenses that are more or less free, or perhaps entirely, but which haven't been evaluated. In the case of this license, we'd have to set NO_*_ON_CDROM, so it's clearly not ok for default.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature