On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 07:48:31PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > Hi Adrian,
Hi Nicholas, >... > Did you read the text at that link? yes. > "it *does* cause practical > problems, including incompatibility with the GNU GPL [emphasis mine]" DFSG free code does not have to be GPL compatible. >... > Were you to provide proof from a legal team that the BSD-4-clause was > somehow GPL-compatible, GPL compatibility is only relevant for for code linked with GPLed code. I fail to see how it would be relevant for the code in question.[1] GPL-incompatible licencing of software like OpenSSL is not a DFSG problem, only a practical problem. > it would still not be DFSG-free, because it > fails the "desert island test" for snail mail. Were OmniTI Computer > Consulting would accept email, it would also fail the "dissident test". This is the first time I see someone claiming BSD-4-clause would not be distributable. > Finally, BSD-4-clause is not an approved license in KDE projects > https://community.kde.org/Policies/Licensing_Policy Policies for new source code added in KDE are not relevant in Debian. > Feel free to escalate this issue...I'm humble and am comfortable with > being shown the error of my ways, but I believe this is a genuine > problem. Yes, it would be good if other people from debian-legal would comment. > Regards, > Nicholas cu Adrian [1] https://sources.debian.org/src/kcachegrind/4:19.08.1-1/converters/dprof2calltree/
