Re: Review of license
I agree with Francesco Poli that the license, while not ideal, is
acceptable. Using 3a (licencing the changes under the same license, or any
compatible licence, and distributing them through the Debian mirror network
definately satisfies that requirement. End users can choose 3b if they will
not distribute, 3c if they want to distribute changed source without making
the changes publicly available (like posting them on the web), or 3a if they
are willing to post them on the web.
For both Debian and end users, the binary version freedoms should be
satisifed by 4b.
The nastiest part of the whole licence is 3, since just placing the work
under a free license is possibly not sufficent for 3a, if public
distribution is not also performed. The whole idea here though was that the
copyright holder has the rights to see any use any changed version of the
source that did not also change the name and manpages. The licence of the
changes might not even allow the Copyright holder to incorporate the changes
without changin the licence on the work as a whole, such as if the changes
were placed under the GPL. And in fact nobody else besides the change
authors or the copyright holder could use the changes if they were placed
under the GPL, but that would still wualify under 3a.
This is the type of messed up license obtained when a lawyer never looks
over the license, and the drafter is not familar with license drafting.
Reply to: