Re: Seeking advice on DFSG compatibility of MIT license plus custom attribution requirement

Soren Stoutner <[email protected]> Wed, 08 Oct 2025 21:33:53 -0700

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal
Organization	Debian
Message-ID	<2518132.Mh6RI2rZIc@soren-desktop>

On Wednesday, October 8, 2025 8:01:27 PM Mountain Standard Time John Scott 
wrote:
> I also want to draw attention to this point by Soren Stoutner:
> > What makes this a little different is that it appears to claim that works
> > produced using the software must also attribute the original upstream
> > project and distribute a copy of the original upstream software license. 
It
> > does *NOT* say that works produced using the software must be *licensed*
> > under the original upstream license. For example, if this license were
> > applied to LibreOffice, it would require that any *documents* produced by
> > LibreOffice be distributed with an attribution saying it was produced 
using
> > LibreOffice and a copy of the LibreOffice license.
> I don't share this reservation—if this is being inferred from the "or any of
> its associated files", I think the "associated files" is intended to refer
> to files associated with the work. This should be cleared up, but as I'll
> argue in a moment, this would still be DFSG-free for a couple of reasons.

The text from the license which caused me concern was:

"any of its associated files that was generated in *any approach*”

Is a file generated by a user using the binary an "associated file”?  That 
isn’t language that is common in other licenses, so, as far as I know, there 
isn’t a standard, industry-wide acceptance of what those terms mean.  I agree 
that if the meaning of this were cleared up my concerns could be ameliorated.

I agree with you that even if they did intend this, it would probably still be 
DFSG-free, which I believe is what I communicated in my original email.  
However, as I stated before, it would make it incompatible with licenses which 
prevent further restrictions (like the GPL) and would also make it a license 
which I would personally avoid.

-- 
Soren Stoutner
[email protected]

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)