Package: aiccu Severity: normal The aiccu license states the following additional clauses which caused it to be considered as non-free: | 4. One should not remove any reference to, or logo of, SixXS. | 5. When the software is altered to not use SixXS services, one is | kindly asked to notify SixXS of this by sending an email to the | SixXS Staff at [EMAIL PROTECTED], containing at least the following | details: | [snip]
Pim van Pelt answered with the following clarifications: | > 5. When the software is altered ... | > How is the "kindly asked" to be interpreted? As a weak and polite | > form of "must", or as a "should"? That would make quite a difference | > for us. If it's a requirement, it fails both the Desert Island test | > and the Chinese Dissident test[1]. Could you please clarify this? | It's a should. | | > 4. One should not remove any reference to, or logo of, SixXS. | > So this is a RFC definition of `should'... So if I modify it not to | > connect to SixXS, I am allowed not to display any reference to | > SixXs, it's just discouraged? (With the proper copyright notices | > intact of course.) | You will not violate the intent of our license if you remove the logo. | | This program is intended to be used with SixXS. If you do not wish to | use SixXS services, you can safely 'violate' 4 and 5. We much prefer | that the fruit of our programming efforts are used together with the | fruit of our internet service providers' efforts. Jeroen Massar further clarified the `should' used in clause 4: | The "SHOULD" from the IETF, which is a _strong_ hint. If we wanted | that then we would write "MUST". Note also that we used the BSD | license as a base so that eg hardware vendors could simply take the | code and use it without any legal issues (except for compaining | legal/patent folks). I wrote on 2006-08-14: | I spoke to Anthony Towns, one of our ftpmasters, on IRC and he told me | to go for it. [ie. to upload the package to main] It would be nice to see aiccu in etch/main and autobuilt. This discussion started on 2006-08-12, the maintainer did not respond until now although he was copied on the whole conversation. (Which is, by the way, archived in debian-email on master.) Kind regards, Philipp Kern
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
