On Mon, Feb 14, 2005 at 05:46:44PM +0000, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Chris Sacca <csacca@thecsl.org>
>
> > I'm not that skilled with legal-speak, and I was wondering
> > if someone could clear up if this the DFSG compatible,
>
> It is not free. We have previously rejected software with similar
> functional restrictions (though the name escapes me at the moment).
>
> Non-free clause from http://www.maiamailguard.com/license.php
> reproduced here, for cc'ing to the RFP bug:
>
> > 4. At least one of the following branding conventions must be used:
> > ~ a. The Maia Mailguard logo appears in the page-top banner of
> > ~ all HTML output pages in an unmodified form, and links
> > ~ directly to the Maia Mailguard home page; or
> >
> > ~ b. The "Powered by Maia Mailguard" graphic appears in the HTML
> > ~ output of all gateway pages that lead to this software,
> > ~ linking directly to the Maia Mailguard home page
> > ~ <img src="http://www.maiamailguard.com/images/poweredbymaia.gif";>
> >
> > ~ c. Rebranding License
> > ~ is obtained from the copyright owner, exempting the Licensee
> > ~ from 4(a) and 4(b), subject to the additional conditions laid out
> > ~ in that license document.
The origionally posted license seemed to imply that clauses 3 and 4 were
alternatives, and you only had to meet one of them; clause 3 appeared to
more or less be a BSD advertising clause (cross-reference the 'flowc'
licensing discussion...)
If it's free, then wouldn't that make the license free (by not exercising
option 4 at all, making it irrelevant)? I agree that trying to invoke
option 4 wouldn't work.
--
Joel Aelwyn <fenton@debian.org> ,''`.
: :' :
`. `'
`-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature