On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 22:48:22 -0400 Adam C Powell IV wrote: [...] > On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 22:56 +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: [...] > > Since the first licensing issue is still present (non-freeness of a > > QPL-licensed file), I am reopening the bug report. > > Is QPL really considered non-DFSG-free?
I am convinced that it fails to meet the DFSG, and it seems that I am not the only one. Please take a look at the already cited (long) threads on debian-legal: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00157.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00339.html As I have already said: at least one package (libcwd) got moved from main to non-free due to the QPL (see bug #251983), and one package (ocaml) is in main because it's licensed under the terms of a modified QPL, without the choice of venue clause and with an additional permission to ignore clause 6c (see ocaml changelog entry for version 3.08.1-1). > The Wiki [1] includes it among > "Licenses whose status is unsettled", That's it: I don't think there should be works under highly controversial licenses in Debian main... > and although the example mentioned > of Qt can be in main because it is QPL/GPL (or was when this was > written), the acceptance of deal.II [2] into main indicates that the FTP > masters believe that QPL is DFSG-free. I am convinced that accepting QPL-licensed works in main is a mistake (maybe an oversight, or maybe not, but a mistake anyway). -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgpE5eOfyeGov.pgp
Description: PGP signature
