Already taken care of an hour or so ago on #devuan-dev.

<DPA> KatolaZ: Considering everything that has been said here and on the
mailing list, I decided to remove the clause from the license.
<DPA> I have already updated the repositories accordingly.

On 2017-07-05 14:20, Bruce Perens wrote:
> Do you want to talk with him, or should I? It should be possible to
> convince him to change the license, so that we can go on with the
> package.
>

>     Thanks

>

>     Bruce

>
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 8:46 AM, Ivan J. <parazyd@???> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 05 Jul 2017, KatolaZ wrote:
>>
>>> DR D1Rs,
>>>
>>> yesterday I was reviewing a new package made by Daniel Abrecht
>> (DPA),
>>> a little library that implements the sd_journal_* functions by
>>> redirecting the calls to syslog. The project can be found here:
>>>
>>> https://git.devuan.org/DPA/sd_journal_shim [1]
>>>
>>> This would allow to avoid to link against libsystemd0 if the
>> program
>>> wants just to use systemd logging facilities.
>>>
>>> I was about to move it under devuan-packages to build it for
>>> experimental, but I noticed that the License (an almost regular
>>> Expat/MIT license, for the rest) contained an additional clause:
>>>
>>> "This software shall not be used to encourage others to use the
>>> systemd journal API, or any of it's sd_journal_* functions."
>>>
>>> so I immediately held my horses. My main complaint here is that
>> this
>>> clause makes the software non compliant with freedom 0 (the
>> freedom to
>>> use the software for whatever aim and task), so technically
>> speaking
>>> the package is not free-software, and cannot go in Devuan/main.
>> Aside
>>> from that, that clause makes the library GPL-incompatible, which
>> would
>>> undermine the good intentions of DPA. making the library
>> practically
>>> useless (unless the programs linking it are not GPL).
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> That clause itself is not a big problem, but IMHO it should rather
>> be
>> moved to the README file or something similar rather than the
>> license
>> itself where it actually *is* putting restrictions and in the case
>> of
>> FSF would not be considered free software.
>>
>>