On Thu, Mar 27, 2003 at 11:26:45AM +0100, Antonin Kral wrote: > I'm just working on packaging pimd. Pimd includes some part of code from > mrouted implementation. I'v looked into copyright statements of pimd ( > > http://bobek.sh.cvut.cz/~bobek/pimd/LICENSE > http://bobek.sh.cvut.cz/~bobek/pimd/LICENSE.mrouted > > ) > IMHO both of them are look as modified BSD-like licences. But I'v > realized that mrouted is in non-free section. It looks to quite > inconsistent, so I am not sure if I can put pimd into main. If the files themselves look like they're licensed exclusively under the cited licenses (I agree, they look pretty much identical to the 3-clause BSD license, which is DFSG-free), then there is not a problem. mrouted may be in non-free because of *other* files than the ones you're interested in. If you have a good faith belief that the files in Pimd are licensed as indicated, you're fine. As long as Pimd is otherwise licensed in a DFSG-free way, you're good to go for Debian main. If someone made independently copyrightable modifications to the files, but provided no notice of this in the files themselves (or, at the very least, in a README), I'd say that's their problem. If you have a good faith belief that the files are freely licensed, then we're entitled to treat them as such until contrary evidence is brought to our attention. Please let debian-legal know if there are any other questions we can answer. -- G. Branden Robinson | It just seems to me that you are Debian GNU/Linux | willfully entering an arse-kicking email@example.com | contest with a monstrous entity http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | that has sixteen legs and no arse.
Description: PGP signature