[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

License question: Re: Bug#389598: ITP: xpbiff


On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 09:22:35PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> James Vega <jamessan@debian.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 07:29:05PM +0200, Gernot Salzer wrote:
> >> Copyright:
> >> 
> >>  * xpbiff - popup biff for X
> >>  *
> >>  * Author: Kazuhiko Shutoh, 1993
> >>  *
> >>  * Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute without charge this 
> >> software,
> >
> > Doesn't the 'without charge' bit violate DFSG #1?

It is confusing for sure.  But the intent of the author was probably to
be a shorter funny version of MIT license.

> If it is meant as it is written, yes.  Often sentences like this can
> also be read as "Permission, without charge, to use, copy, ...".  But in
> this particular case the "without charge" seems to be quite clearly
> associated with "distribute".

Let's ask the author nicely.  It is a xbiff derivative.  I think authour
will be very likely to agree original MIT X license terms.  Only his
Imakefile and xpbiff.c seems to suffer this.  Other sources in the
tar-ball uses standard MIT X license.

To be nice to him, I write following in Japanese.




 * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
 * documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided
 * that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that
 * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting
 * documentation. Kazuhiko Shutoh makes no representations about the
 * suitability of this software for any purpose.  It is provided "as is"
 * without express or implied warranty. The author assumes no 
 * responsibility for lost sleep as a consequence of use of this software.


い致しました。 (デビアンは http://www.debian.org です。)



Reply to: