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

Re: Bug#551026: ITP: xcite -- exciting cite utility for Emacsen



I talked upstream author. He wouldn't provide any additional 
license term. His logic is ...

* xcite is "free software". 

* "free software" satisfies 
  "freely  usable, freely (re-)distributable
  without  any charge  for  itself, freely  modifiable unless  the
  original  author(=me)'s copyrights  are infringed  or neglected,
  absolutely not responsible to  any result from itself. "

So he thinks xcite's license is defined explicitly. 

How do you feel ?

>>>>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:11:49 +0200
>>>>> ubanus@users.sf.net(Jakub Wilk)  said:
> 
> * TANIGUCHI Takaki <takaki@asis.media-as.org>, 2009-10-15, 11:35:
> >* Package name    : xcite
> >  Version         : 1.58
> >  Upstream Author : HIROSE Yuuji [yuuji@gentei.org]
> >* URL or Web page : http://www.gentei.org/~yuuji/software/
> >* License         : original
> >
> >    This  software  is distributed as  a free  software  without any
> >    warranty to anything  as a result  of using this.  Especially, I
> >    am not responsible for the case when you cite your friend's mail
> >    with a silly citation prefix in a serious situation :)
> >
> >    * Can I incorporate this program into Debian package?
> >
> >    Yes.
> 
> Upstream's agreement neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for 
> a piece of software to be included in Debian. First of all, it needs to 
> have a clear, DFSG-free license attached...
> 
> >    This  "Yes"  is  NOT  a  special answer  only  for  Debian.
> >    My  recognition  on  `free  software'  is  not  the  permanently
> >    constant  notion.  Therefore  I won't  define the  fixed license
> >    sentences at any moment of my life.  
> 
> ...which upstream refuses to provide.
> 
> >    All I can say now is I hope
> >    the free  software be; freely  usable, freely (re-)distributable
> >    without  any charge  for  itself, freely  modifiable unless  the
> >    original  author(=me)'s copyrights  are infringed  or neglected,
> >    absolutely not responsible to  any result from itself.  If there
> >    is A  license clauses which  implies these points above  in some
> >    era, this  software can  be classified into  the group  that the
> >    clauses want to assume as `free'.
> 
> This wording is far too vague. Please bug upstream to use a well-known 
> license.
> 
> -- 
> Jakub Wilk
> 
> 
--
谷口 貴紀 (TANIGUCHI Takaki) takaki@asis.media-as.org


Reply to: