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

Soren Stoutner <[email protected]> Wed, 15 Oct 2025 16:23:31 -0700

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.legal
Organization	Debian
Message-ID	<2165349.zap0tEeoAL@soren-desktop>

On Sunday, October 12, 2025 6:57:33 AM Mountain Standard Time Francesco Poli 
wrote:
> 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...

It isn’t a restriction on use (at least as far as I read it).  It is simply a 
requirement to distribute attribution.

-- 
Soren Stoutner
[email protected]

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