On 03.02.2018 18:37, Greg Troxel wrote: > > Currently we have a notion that licenses should not have -license > suffix and be in DEFAULT_ACCEPTABLE if they are either > > Free according to FSF, or > Open Source according to OSI > > The point has been to avoid TNF and TNF members making decisions about > where the edges are when packages have boutique licenses. > > It seems that FSF and OSI aren't regularly evaluating all the random > boutique licenses, which is understandable given the push to tell people > to pick a normal license. However, Debian does, having the same problem > as we do. > > So, I would like to add > > meeting DFSG as determined by Debian, evidenced by inclusion in main > > to the list of approvers. > > Objections? > I'm in favor of this. Debian was always very careful with licenses and maintainers are checking every file. Entering main/ with a controversial package isn't trivial, for example dynamips uses a small blob (prebuilt MIPS executable), while almost nobody cares - it's a red flag for the Debian policy. Another example is with lout, it adding to a generated output its code that was unlicensed - it was red flag for Debian and the lout developer relicensed it to Public Domain.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature