Bug#524732: simutrans: license is not Artistic as in common-licenses

[Francesco Poli]

On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 17:00:07 +0900 Ansgar Burchardt wrote:

[...]
> "Francesco Poli (t1000)" <frx at firenze.linux.it> writes:
> 
> > Hence, it's OK that the license text is quoted in full in the
> > debian/copyright file, but it's *not* OK that this license is called
> > "Artistic", since the copyright file format specification
> > (http://wiki.debian.org/Proposals/CopyrightFormat?action=recall&rev=226)
> > defines "Artistic" as "The original Artistic license, as seen in
> > /usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic".
> >
> > Please change the misleading label to something more appropriate
> > (probably "other").
> 
> Correct, this might be misleading.  However, in the current DEP-5
> the "as seen in ..." was dropped.

Ah, I didn't notice this change.

> I am not sure what is the intention
> to do in this case.

I think this should be clarified: I am Cc:ing Steve Langasek, the
driver of DEP-5.

Steve, could you comment on this bug (#524732): what should be put in
the debian/copyright when the license is an Artistic one, but not the
one in /usr/share/common-licenses/Artistic ?

> 
> FYI, the version of the Artistic license that Simutrans uses can also
> be found on the OSI web page:
> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license-1.0.php
> 
> > Moreover, I cannot find any debian-legal thread about this modified
> > Artistic license for Simutrans.
> > Was this license analyzed in order to check that simutrans really
> > belongs in Debian main?  Could you point me to the relevant thread?
> > I fear that mislabelling the license as "Artistic" could have caused
> > some easy & fast "It's OK for main" conclusion...
> 
> There is no thread on debian-legal about this license (there is also no
> requirement for such a thread).  Do you see any problem with this
> particular license?
> 
> I have at least read the license text and compared it with the Artistic
> license in /usr/share/common-license and did not see any problem myself.

I seem to remember that the original Artistic license was written with
good intentions, but the actual text is too vague and unclear: the FSF
does not accept it as a Free Software license (see
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense), while
the Debian Project considers it as acceptable because of the drafters'
intentions.

However, I am not too familiar with the Artistic licenses myself:
I have never analyzed any of them in detail.  I don't know if I would
reach conclusions consistent with the ones of the Debian Project...

Maybe, upstream could just be suggested to dual-license under the
Artistic and the GNU GPL (following the example of Perl). 


-- 
 New location for my website! Update your bookmarks!
 http://www.inventati.org/frx
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-games-devel/attachments/20091206/0b75aef6/attachment.pgp>