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

Re: installing on RiscPC

On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 05:18:04PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> On Tue 04 Sep, Phil Blundell wrote:
> > >as it basically worked. Given that rmk has mostly lost interest in
> > >the RiscPC these days he may well now be happy to fully free this
> > >code so we can just use that?
> > 
> > Did you ask him about this?
> Yes, but got no answer. I just poked him and got the response below, which
> I think means no, he doesn't want to change the license, and it's doesn't
> agree it's non-free. he could be right - I suggest we ask debian-legal to
> give a ruling.
> -------
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 03:08:03PM +0100, Wookey wrote:
> > > 2. You may modify the sources at your own will. However, if you modify
> > >    the sources or use the sources in your own programs, you must give
> > >    due credit to the original author which must be visible to the user
> > >    of your program.
> > 
> > Whilst of course no-one has any desire to remove due credit for your work,
> > this sort of restriction is not permitted. (A license can say that the
> > license terms must be transferred unchanged to any sub-licensees, but they
> > do not allow upstream to restrict the right of source code modification).

No, that sort of restriction is fine (it's just BSD clause 2 ...),
assuming that you consider e.g. program documentation to be "visible to
the user of your program".

> 1. Modifications should come back to me.  This is to prevent the current
>    situation where people have long outstanding patches against the Linux
>    kernel sitting around that we, as a community, never see.  If anything,
>    this is a requirement I want to tighten up.

This I'm not sure about. -legal?

Colin Watson                                  [cjwatson@flatline.org.uk]

Reply to: