?sthetic Permissive License - For Approval

Rick Moen rick at linuxmafia.com
Sat Dec 29 23:47:09 UTC 2007

Quoting Sean B. Palmer (sean at miscoranda.com):

> On Dec 29, 2007 8:22 PM, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> > As to my own licenses, OSL/AFL 3.0, that two-line form of notice
> > is expressly the minimum required.
> But neither are DFSG compatible. I didn't mention that requirement.

I deny your premise:  Both of those comply with the DFSG.  (Perhaps
you're referring to the opinion of a poster on the public debian-legal
mailing list.  If so, that person was mistaken, which certainly would
be hardly the first time such an outcome has occurred.)

If necessary, I can go into the nature of what constitutes an
authoritative position within the Debian Project, and what does not, and
what _really_ determines whether software submitted by a Debian
developer will be accepted and remain within the canonical package
collections.  However, I believe that would be rather severely offtopic
for this list.

(For starters, any number of several Web pages purporting to represent
the opinion or consensus of debian-legal have no authority whatsoever.)

Cheers,                                     Ceci n'est pas une pipe:   |
Rick Moen
rick at linuxmafia.com 

More information about the License-review mailing list