tech-pkg archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: proposal: add Debian and DFSG as an approver for acceptable licenses

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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index