Re: the ripmime license
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, MJ Ray wrote:
> On 2004-02-22 16:43:36 +0000 Willi Mann V. <willi@wm1.at> wrote:
> > Such redistributions must allow further use, modification, and
> > redistribution of the Source Code under substantially the same
> > terms as this license.
>
> I think this is DFSG-free, but there's a lawyerbomb for combining
> with other licences (what is "substantially"?).
Yeah, this is yet another example of how not to write a license, or at
least how to stick a (possibly) gaping chasm into your license.
> > IN NO EVENT SHALL SENDMAIL, INC., THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
>
> Odd: P.L.Daniels not listed as cannot be held liable and where did
> "Sendmail, Inc" come in?
Yet another example of why copying and pasting licenses may be
hazardous to your health.
I personally agree that the license may be DFSG Free, but a few of the
clauses of this license definetly give me pause. Someone should
suggest that upstream use an already accepted DFSG Free copyleft
license instead of rolling his|her own. [Or at the very least, work
with a lawyer experienced in the writing of such licenses.]
Don Armstrong
--
She was alot like starbucks.
IE, generic and expensive.
-- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm
http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu
Reply to: