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

Re: DFSG vs Pine's legal notices: where exactly is the gotcha?



On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:44:43PM -0600, Nathan E Norman wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 05:06:55PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > So the BSD license is non-free as written, and it's only the good graces
> > of the copyright holders that use it that keep us from getting sued?
> 
> I wondered about this too.  However, the BSD license in
> /usr/share/common-licenses says
> 
>   Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>   modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
>   are met:
> 
> I'm no lawyer, but I think this can only be interpreted in one sane
> way.  This is different than the UW license quoted earlier in the thread.

Mmm, yes.

I think I was being reminded of the MIT/X11 license instead:

        Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
        copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
        "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
        without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
        distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
        permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
        the following conditions:

Well, Thomas?  How about this one?  Is being able to "deal" in the work
"without restriction" and "without limitation" sufficient to allow
people to distribute modified copies?

/me grunts his extreme displeasure with the situation

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |
Debian GNU/Linux                   |       "Bother," said Pooh, as he was
branden@debian.org                 |       assimilated by the Borg.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpXtniBVisCj.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: