[Fsf-Debian] few arguments to FSF

Michał Masłowski mtjm at mtjm.eu
Sun Aug 12 15:49:14 UTC 2012

> I know that is true with the Apache 1.0 license.  I don't know about any
> others.
> On 08/11/2012 11:39 PM, Adam Bolte wrote:
>> I think there is a license the DFSG
>> considers free but the FSF does not?

You most probably mean the original Artistic License (used by Perl in
dual license with GPL 1 or later) [0][1].  The Apache 1.0 license is
free according to both FSF and DFSG [2][3].

There was some software in Lenny main under the original Artistic
License, I haven't found any in Squeeze checking for some packages
listed in the gNewSense Metad blacklist (some was relicensed to the
Clarified Artistic License).

[0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense
[1] http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#The_Artistic_License
[2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache1
[3] http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#The_Apache_Software_License_.28ASL.29
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/fsf-collab-discuss/attachments/20120812/511442ec/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Fsf-collab-discuss mailing list