On Tue, 12 Feb 2002 09:46:36 +0100 Thomas Seyrat <thomas@glou.net> wrote: > # BabelWeb should not be used as a lucrative tools without author > # autorization. > > Except for the bad english, I do not know what to think about this : > the point 6 of DFSG insists on the fact that the license must not > restrict the software from being used in any kind on business, but > this is not the case here, this is just a need for author's > approval, some kind of informal agreement ... Getting any kind of agreement or approval or authorization *is* a restriction, in fact. > So, should I consider this software as "free" to DFSG's terms and > package it for main, or do I need the author to remove this > condition ? It depends on the interpretation of "should". Hopefully a lawyer-type will respond to the post, because as far as I interpret, "should" means optional. Strongly encouraged, but not required. I bet the author wants to use the words "can not be" or "may not be" instead of "should", given their difficulty with English. -- .--=====-=-=====-=========----------=====-----------=-=-----=. / David Barclay Harris Aut agere, aut mori. \ \ Clan Barclay Either action, or death. / `-------======-------------=-=-----=-===-=====-------=--=----'
Attachment:
pgpVJrETzBNJO.pgp
Description: PGP signature