On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 17:00:07 +0900 Ansgar Burchardt wrote: [...] > "Francesco Poli (t1000)" <f...@firenze.linux.it> writes: > > > Hence, it's OK that the license text is quoted in full in the > > debian/copyright file, but it's *not* OK that this license is called > > "Artistic", since the copyright file format specification > > (http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat?action=recall&rev=226) > > defines "Artistic" as "The original Artistic license, as seen in > > /usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic". > > > > Please change the misleading label to something more appropriate > > (probably "other"). > > Correct, this might be misleading. However, in the current DEP-5 > the "as seen in ..." was dropped.
Ah, I didn't notice this change. > I am not sure what is the intention > to do in this case. I think this should be clarified: I am Cc:ing Steve Langasek, the driver of DEP-5. Steve, could you comment on this bug (#524732): what should be put in the debian/copyright when the license is an Artistic one, but not the one in /usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic ? > > FYI, the version of the Artistic license that Simutrans uses can also > be found on the OSI web page: > http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0.php > > > Moreover, I cannot find any debian-legal thread about this modified > > Artistic license for Simutrans. > > Was this license analyzed in order to check that simutrans really > > belongs in Debian main? Could you point me to the relevant thread? > > I fear that mislabelling the license as "Artistic" could have caused > > some easy & fast "It's OK for main" conclusion... > > There is no thread on debian-legal about this license (there is also no > requirement for such a thread). Do you see any problem with this > particular license? > > I have at least read the license text and compared it with the Artistic > license in /usr/share/common-license and did not see any problem myself. I seem to remember that the original Artistic license was written with good intentions, but the actual text is too vague and unclear: the FSF does not accept it as a Free Software license (see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense), while the Debian Project considers it as acceptable because of the drafters' intentions. However, I am not too familiar with the Artistic licenses myself: I have never analyzed any of them in detail. I don't know if I would reach conclusions consistent with the ones of the Debian Project... Maybe, upstream could just be suggested to dual-license under the Artistic and the GNU GPL (following the example of Perl). -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpsctBpDls2n.pgp
Description: PGP signature
