On Sat, Jul 11, 2020 at 03:36:04PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jul 2020 18:33:32 -0400 Nicholas D Steeves wrote: >... > Well, as far as I can say, the 4-clause BSD license is considered > acceptable for Debian main. > It is also [considered] a free software license by the FSF, although it > is considered GPL-incompatible, ugly and strongly recommended against > (for people who are choosing a license to release new software under). >... > It would therefore be safer to not include 4-clause BSD licensed > material in a package where other parts (or libraries) are under the > GNU GPL.
The main point here is that there is no legal problem that needs fixing, so let's not use words like "safer" that would imply otherwise. I am not disputing the "ugly and strongly recommended against". >... > • try and get in touch with OmniTI Computer Consulting and persuade > them to re-license the dprof2calltree converter under the terms of > the 3-clause BSD license (which does not include the deprecated OAC > and is indeed GPL-compatible), but persuade them on the ground of > GPL-incompatibility, deprecation, and practical issues of the OAC > (not on the ground of a DFSG-freeness issue, since there is no such > issue!) OmniTI was bought by credativ, if anyone thinks it is worth the effort they do employ some DDs. > • try and find a GPL-compatible replacement for dprof2calltree >... These are 2 scripts with a combined 350 LOC, if anyone really cares it is likely fastest to rewrite from scratch. cu Adrian
