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
>>>>> firstname.lastname@example.org(Jakub Wilk) said:
> * TANIGUCHI Takaki <email@example.com>, 2009-10-15, 11:35:
> >* Package name : xcite
> > Version : 1.58
> > Upstream Author : HIROSE Yuuji [firstname.lastname@example.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
> Jakub Wilk
谷口 貴紀 (TANIGUCHI Takaki) email@example.com