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

Re: License considerations



There is one more thing to consider.  That's the use of common
sense.  Something for an 8-bit Atari that is copyright 1989?!  The 8-bit
Ataris were long out of production in 1989.  I'd take a good look at the
originality of the copyright in that case.  The copyright date and the
presumed date of use are off by at least 5 years.  How did these programs
get promulgated when the 300/600 were new-ish?  I'm betting you can find a
PD copy that predates the copyright date.

On Wed, 20 Dec 2000, Manuel Menal wrote:

> peter karlsson wrote:
> 
> pk> Hi!
> 
> Hi,
> 
> pk> I just want to ask the experts whether or not this license is DFSG free
> pk> or not.
> 
> I'm not an expert at all, but I can perhaps help you.
> 
> pk> To me, it looks that way, but I just want to make sure:
> 
> These  licenses  are very simple, and I think it's not hard to find if
> they're DFSG-free or not.
> Just very the nine points:
> 
> Free Redistribution
> Source Code
> Derived Works
> Integrity of The Author's Source Code
> No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
> No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
> Distribution of License
> License Must Not Be Specific to Debian
> License Must Not Contaminate Other Software
> 
> That's to learn by heart :-)
> 
> pk> ===[ cut ]===
> pk>      This is the copyright notice for RA65, LINK65, LIBR65, and other
> pk>   Atari 8-bit programs.  Said programs are Copyright 1989, by John R.
> pk>   Dunning.  All rights reserved, with the following exceptions:
> 
> pk>       Anyone may copy or redistribute these programs, provided that:
> 
> pk>   1:  You don't charge anything for the copy.  It is permissable to
> pk>       charge a nominal fee for media, etc.
> 
> I'm  not  sure, but I think this doesn't respect the Free Distribution
> point, the first in DFSG. It's said that [ the license] "may not restrict
> any  party  from  selling  or giving away the software". Here, you
> can't sell it, so it's not DFSG-compliant. IMHO.
> 
> [cut]
> pk> ===[ cut ]===
> 
> pk> And also this, that covers another part of the program:
> 
> 
> [cut]
> 
> It  seems  to  respect  all  the  points  of  the  DFSG. So, it's free
> software. But that's just my opinion.
> 
> pk> Please Cc me since I'm not subscribed to the list. Thanks in advance,
> pk> --
> pk> \\//
> pk> peter - http://www.softwolves.pp.se/
> 
> pk>   Statement concerning unsolicited e-mail according to Swedish law:
> pk>   http://www.softwolves.pp.se/peter/reklampost.html
> 
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong,
> 
> --
> mmenal
>                                  ____               _    _                    _
>          __  __ _ __  __  __    / ___| ___  _   _  | |  ( )_ __  _   ___  __ | |
> (o-      \ \/ /(_)\ \/ /  _ \  | |  _ /'_ \| | | | | |  | | '_ \| | | \ \/ / | |
> /\        \  / | | \  / | __/  | |_| | | | | |_| | | |__| | | | | |_| |>  <  |_|
> L_/_       \/  |_|  \/  \___|  \_____|_| |_|\__,_/ |____|_|_| |_|\__,_/_/\_\ (_)
> 
> 
>  
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Vous avez un site perso ?
> 2 millions de francs  gagner sur i(france) !
> Webmasters : ZE CONCOURS ! http://www.ifrance.com/_reloc/concours.emailif
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Pardon me, but you have obviously mistaken me for someone who gives a
damn.
email galt@inconnu.isu.edu



Reply to: