[Fsf-Debian] few arguments to FSF

[Adam Bolte]

On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 05:49:14PM +0200, Michał Masłowski wrote:
> > 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].
> 
> [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

Sounds like the one I was trying to think of. Thanks.

> 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).
 
Awesome. So it sounds like this probably wouldn't be an issue at all, from a
technical standpoint anyway.

Cheers,
Adam
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/fsf-collab-discuss/attachments/20120813/221b4f6d/attachment.pgp>