Re: Floodgap Free Software License

[John Nemeth <jnemeth%cue.bc.ca@localhost>]

On Dec 14,  8:22am, Greg Troxel wrote:
} 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

     The FSF has a restricted definition of what's acceptable, OSI
would include everything that the FSF does and much more.

} 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.

     Why?  I'm pretty sure a CDROM full of FLOSS would fall under
the following as the product is the CDROM, not the package in question:

          + If you are selling a product that includes this package or a
            derivative work either as part of your product's requirements
            for function or as a bundled extra, such as an operating
            system distribution, you may charge a fee for your product as
            long as you also make this package or said derivative work
            available for free separately (such as by download or link
            back to this package's site), as you are considered to be
            requesting a fee for your own product and the package is
            merely included as a convenience to your users.

}-- End of excerpt from Greg Troxel