Re: Spice copyright
On Tue, 26 Aug 1997, Jim Pick wrote:
> > Philippe Troin <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > 1. The licensee agrees not to charge for the University of
> > > California code itself.
> > > It then seems to me that spice can be packaged in Debian main
> > > distribution.
> > No, it has to go in non-free because of the above clause.
> > Guy
> But if you read it in context, it says:
> 1. The licensee agrees not to charge for the University of California
> code itself. The licensee may, however, charge for additions,
> extensions, or support.
> So if we modify it - then it can go into the main distribution, since
> somebody who is charging for our version could conceivably be charging for
> our modification.
> Aren't we modifying something when we package it?
I think it has to go in non-free because of the spirit of the above
clause, and also, because the "licensee" must sign an agreement prior to
download and distribution. Or, did I misread that part?
Syrus Nemat-Nasser <email@example.com> UCSD Physics Dept.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .