Is it possible to review the ISOC-rfc license? In case it's non free can you make the file using it optional?
This is virtually identical wording as can be found in the OASIS-Open license. The latter was discussed on the emacs-devel mailing list a couple of months ago. Especially, the following posting of mine: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2021-01/msg01133.html Read these notices carefully. The key paragraph is this: This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this section are included on all such copies and derivative works. Only a special class of derivative works can be distributed freely, and it sounds like some of these would fall under "fair use" anyway. Certainly this isn't enough to qualify as a free software license? However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ including by removing the copyright notice or references to OASIS, except as needed for the purpose of developing any document or deliverable produced by an OASIS Technical Committee (in which case the rules applicable to copyrights, as set forth in the OASIS IPR Policy, must be followed) or as required to translate it into languages other than English. ... and RMS's reply: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2021-01/msg01159.html > Only a special class of derivative works can be distributed freely, > and it sounds like some of these would fall under "fair use" anyway. > Certainly this isn't enough to qualify as a free software license? Sad to say, you are right -- it is not a free license. So I think the conclusion is that ISOC-rfc cannot be added to @MISC-FREE either.
(In reply to Alessandro Barbieri from comment #0) > Is it possible to review the ISOC-rfc license? In case it's non free can you > make the file using it optional? IMHO a use flag for this wouldn't make much sense. That file doesn't add anything essential, so let's simply drop it.
The bug has been closed via the following commit(s): https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=9cad0fbac3d38266a1b672793528e77147d1eb03 commit 9cad0fbac3d38266a1b672793528e77147d1eb03 Author: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> AuthorDate: 2021-05-12 09:02:02 +0000 Commit: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> CommitDate: 2021-05-12 09:02:02 +0000 app-text/dictd: Don't install non-free RFC file Specify license more precisely. Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/782043 Package-Manager: Portage-3.0.18, Repoman-3.0.3 Signed-off-by: Ulrich Müller <ulm@gentoo.org> app-text/dictd/{dictd-1.13.0-r1.ebuild => dictd-1.13.0-r2.ebuild} | 6 +++--- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
