On Wed, Jul 05, 2017 at 09:17:25PM +0900, Olaf Meeuwissen wrote:

[cut]

>
> > In a word, I would not agree to include this package in Devuan/main,
> > unless that clause is removed. But just for the sake of clarity (and
> > because I think this can create a nasty precedent) I thought it was
> > good to ask here.
>
> If the clause remains, the library should stay out of Devuan/main no
> matter how badly you'd want to use it. Removing the offending clause or
> relicensing (dual licensing?) to a Free Software license is the only
> acceptable way to get this into Devuan/main.
>
> A MIT or BSD-3-clause license would probably be most widely compatible.
>

Just to clarify: DPA themselves has packaged the lib for Devuan, not
me :) I was just reviewing the code before submitting it for build and
inclusion in Devuan.

I had a quick chat with DPA on #devuan-dev yesterday night, and I
explained my concerns about the license. Then, I didn't want the
decision to sound unilteral (although I am confident of its
correctness), so I told DPA that I would have asked on DNG. And so I
did :)

I totally agree that the best thing would be for DPA to change the
license to a regular Expat/MIT (i.e., by removing that clause), and it
is evident now that we are all on the same page.

HND

KatolaZ

-- 
[ ~.,_  Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ - GLUGCT -- Freaknet Medialab  ]  
[     "+.  katolaz [at] freaknet.org --- katolaz [at] yahoo.it  ]
[       @)   http://kalos.mine.nu ---  Devuan GNU + Linux User  ]
[     @@)  http://maths.qmul.ac.uk/~vnicosia --  GPG: 0B5F062F  ] 
[ (@@@)  Twitter: @KatolaZ - skype: katolaz -- github: KatolaZ  ]