Bug#1135657: bmagic: DFSG Issues

[Adrian Bunk]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2026 at 12:07:07AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2026 16:55:11 +0300 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> 
> [...]
> > 4-clause BSD with the advertising clause has always been recognized
> > as DFSG-free (and is also listed at [1]):
> > 
> >   All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this
> >   software must display the following acknowledgement: This product
> >   includes software developed by the <copyright holder>.
> 
> Yes, although it is obnoxious, deprecated, problematic and
> almost everywhere recommended against, it has been traditionally
> considered acceptable with respect to the DFSG.
> 
> The obnoxious advertising clause might be seen as similar to the bmagic
> license clause under consideration.
> So, maybe bmagic complies with the DFSG.
> 
> > AGPLv3 with the following clause is DFSG-free[2]:
> > 
> >   Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify
> >   the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users 
> >   interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your 
> >   version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the 
> >   Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the 
> >   Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through
> >   some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of
> >   software.
> 
> I believe that this is an unfortunate example, for at least two reasons.
> 
> First off, the GNU AfferoGPL v3 is a controversial license, which (this is
> true) has been considered acceptable for main by the Debian FTP Masters
> [2], but is seen as non-acceptable by a number of people (including me
> [3]).

AGPLv3 is an example of a licence that is considered DFSG-free by Debian,
this is a precedent no matter whether you or I like it.

We do (thankfully) not have a history of changing what licences we 
consider DFSG-free.

> Secondly, I don't see much similarity between this clause and the bmagic
> license clause under consideration. Hence, I don't think that the
> DFSG-freeness of works released under the terms of the GNU AfferoGPL v3
> is too relevant for the topic we're discussing here.
>...

Reinhard was arguing with "imposes a specific redistribution burden".

AGPLv3 requires something from the user far more often than 4-clause BSD,
not only when advertising the use of the software.

How can a requirement to maintain a specific reference on a project page 
be considered not DFSG-free, when the AGPLv3 precedent is that a 
requirement to "prominently" link to the sources is DFSG-free?

cu
Adrian