gsview's AFPL licensing
rdieter at math.unl.edu
Wed Apr 5 19:19:30 UTC 2006
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> GSView (currently in Extras) is licensed under the AFPL:
> According to the FSF, this is NOT a Free Software license:
> In particular, it essentially prohibits commercial distribution. In the
> author's own words: "AFPL Ghostscript comes with a licence that is more
> restrictive than the GNU Licence; in particular, it restricts the distribution
> of AFPL Ghostscript in commercial contexts.", and looking at the license (as
> well as the FSF's interpretation of it which appears to match mine),
> "restricts" appears to be an understatement. Each time somebody brought up that
> issue, the consensus was that non-commercial-only licenses are not acceptable
> in Extras (and I agree with that, Fedora aims to contain Free and Open Source
> software only, non-commercial-only software is neither).
You make a very good point. It may have been marginally OK when it was
orginally submitted back in the fedora.us days, but it almost certainly
is not OK for inclusion now.
> I also don't see why GSView is needed in Extras at all, given that:
> * there are alternatives (with less restrictive licensing)...
> * it uses the obsolete GTK+ 1.2,
> * repoquery --whatrequires gsview returns nothing....
This bit is irrelavent. These additional criteria are not required for
including something in Extras.
More information about the fedora-extras-list