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

Fwd: Re: License of OPP and smith#

Hello Debian-Legal,

If I place the email below in a text file and include it with the
package, would that meet the DFSG?

My past packages have included source code "GPL" comments, so I'm
unsure how this kind of situation should be documented.

Obviously one extreme solution is to demand he PGP sign a statement
and have him edit all his source code to BSD license it, but I don't
want to annoy him.

I guess what I'm getting at, is from the point of you lawyers, is
something similar to "I prefer not to use any license at all but if I
must choose, I choose the BSD", close enough to placing "(c) Kurz BSD
license" in the source?

---- Forwarded message from Gerson.Kurz@t-online.de (Gerson Kurz) ----
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 15:47:20 +0100
From: Gerson.Kurz@t-online.de (Gerson Kurz)
To: Vince Mulhollon <vlm@core.com>
Subject: Re: License of OPP and smith#

On Monday, 29. Oktober 2001 03:08 Vince Mulhollon wrote

> I'd like to package and include opp and smith# in Debian Linux.
> ...
> I'd suggest the GPL, but whatever, BSD and Perl artisitc are OK
> Anyway, thanks for writing opp and smith#, very interesting mind-

Hi Vince,

Thats great! I'm just beginning to use Linux on a regular basis
(Suse), so I
think it would be really cool. It is funny though that you'd choose
for inclusion, since of all my languages this has received least
(I get most mails for Java2K and Sorted!) I would be really great if
one or
the other of my efforts made it to debian.

As for the license, I would rather not have any license whatsoever
But if there must be a license, I'd choose BSD.

The files on my website are more often than not in Windows-Format
instead of \n), I'll probably change that some time next week.
Bye, Gerson

------ End forwarded message ------

Reply to: