Re: installing on RiscPC
On Sat 06 Oct, John Galt wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Wookey wrote:
> >The current license in full is:
> >1. The `original author' contained here in is Russell King, currently
> > contactable at email@example.com
> >2. The `source code' refers to the machine-readable source code,
> > suitable for compilers to create the program, which is the form
> > used to make modifications to that code.
> >3. The `program' refers to the machine-executable code which is derived
> > from this source code.
> >Copy these sources as much as you want! It's totally free of charge, and
> >as such is provided WITHOUT warranty. This program is supplied "AS IS",
> >and as such, all damages, loss of data, inaccurate data, loss of earnings,
> >failure of the program and costs caused through use of this program are
> >entirely your own, and not the authors nor contributors.
> >The following conditions are imposed on this source code and program:
> >1. Any changes should be forwarded to the original author for inclusion
> > in a later release of the tools.
> >2. You may modify the sources at your own will. However, if you modify
> > the sources or use the sources in your own programs, you must give
> > due credit to the original author which must be visible to the user
> > of your program.
> >3. You may not redistribute the programs nor the source code, in hole
> > or in part, under the same name(s) as the original program/source
> > names.
> DFSG 4/Pine issues. Actually, couple this with #2 above, and I cannot see
> the case where you are allowed to distribute patches. You are allowed to
> change the whole program, but a one-line patch has no authority between
> clauses 2 and 3, despite clause 2's implicit declaration. Changes "should"
> be forwarded upstream (clause 1), and there's no other mechanism at all to
> distribute patch files, therefore there is no way at all this license can
> pass DFSG 3, despite the watering down of the "under the same license"
> clause, since a conduit upstream is in no way a form of distribution.
John, sorry to be dense, but could you explain what you mean above in "but a
one-line patch has no authority between clauses 2 and 3, despite clause 2's
implicit declaration" - I can't parse it meaningfully at all (as I assume I
am missing a pile of context regular reders of -legal have)
I gather that the consensus is that this license is non-free, although clause
1 is not fatal in itself. Is that right?. I'd like to go back to the author
(who thinks it is free) with some cogent but polite arguments to see if he
can be persuaded to relax things, but feel ill-qualified as licenses is not
my strong point.
Given his desire to retain an obvious 'I wrote this' display and sight of
patches (neither of which seem particularly unreasonable in themselves), can
anyone suggest a free license he could use instead, or the changes required
to this one to make the softwre distributable in Debian.
If that doesn't work then we really have to write our own equivalent.
> >4. All other forms of modification are strictly prohibited.
> I'm trying to see a place where this isn't a no-op. If we can find one,
> that kills the license, regardless of the previous three clauses. That
> is, if there exists a case where clause 4 becomes meaningful, and
> prohibits an otherwise legitimate distribution, the license is non-free.
> >5. A copy of this copyright notice must be included with any
> > distribution or redistribution of this source code, and with any
> > subsequent program distribution.
thanx for your help.
Aleph One Ltd, Bottisham, CAMBRIDGE, CB5 9BA, UK Tel +44 (0) 1223 811679
work: http://www.aleph1.co.uk/ play: http://www.chaos.org.uk/~wookey/