Path: csiph.com!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Miko=C5=82aj_Izdebski?= <zurgunt@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.java
Subject: Re: Possible problematic terms of use of OSGi library
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2015 02:20:02 +0100
Message-ID: <qDBAe-1vb-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <qDpfI-2ao-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
Old-Return-Path: <zurgunt@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Approved: robomod@news.nic.it
Lines: 30
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
Sender: robomod@news.nic.it
Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.java:8661

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Arnaud Vandyck <avandyck@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was on my way trying to package org.osgi.core 6 and before downloading =
I
> have to agree with this page:
>
> https://www.osgi.org/developer/downloads/release-6/release-6-no-form/
>
> In the "License Grant", it seems that it could be problematic to package
> osgi in Debian. Am I right?
>
> Any thoughts?

My thoughts on this matter:

OSGi code can be consider part of specification, which is non-free.
Downloading code from upstream page requires accepting non-free
license first. Upstream website does not have a separate license page
for code accompanying the specification.

License headers alone can't be used as authoritative information about
licensing of the project as a whole. Many projects don't add their own
copyright headers, but retain headers of files coming from other
projects they forked or bundled.

So IMHO licensing and DFSG status of OSGi code is not clear. Other
GNU/Linux distros (at least Fedora and RHEL) decided against packaging
and distributing any code from OSGi alliance.

--
Miko=C5=82aj