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

Francesco Poli <[email protected]> Sun, 12 Oct 2025 15:57:33 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

On Wed, 08 Oct 2025 21:33:53 -0700 Soren Stoutner wrote:

[...]
> 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
[...]

Wouldn't this be a restriction on the use of the binary (if the
intended interpretation of the license text were indeed that a file
generated by a user using the binary is an "associated file”)?

Restrictions on use are generally regarded as DFSG-non-free...


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/
 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

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