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

Is this license DFSG-free, part 2 - Word from upstream



Hi again.

*groan* I have sent upstream a mail, explaining the nonfreeness of the
software and suggesting to use GPL, BSD or Artistic License. The
original answer is below. It translates to: Professor phoned author, and
they say: "It's OK to build on top of our work. Regard the software as
absolutely freely available. Please keep us updated."

Now I'm granted either all rights on the software or exactly those I had
before. My understanding is that "absolutely freely available" has no
legal meaning, while clearly showing upstreams noble intent, and we're
back to square one. [ ] Right / [ ] Wrong?

Or can this be construed as a license, granted to at least me
personally, if not the whole world, granting me in its broadness the
right to redistribute my version under a license of my choosing? Or is
this insufficient wording and/or a grey area in which we don't want to
venture?

Cheers,
Nick


----- upstream answer ---
Hallo Herr Kratz,

ich habe mich nie um die rechtliche Seite der Software gekümmert. 
Der damalige Student Jochen Römmler hatte dies aufgenommen. Ich habe 
ihn nochmals angerufen und auch er hat nichts gegen Weiterentwicklungen,
etc.

Daher betrachten Sie die Software als absolut frei verfügbar!

Es wäre natürlich nett, wenn Sie uns über die von Ihnen durchgeführten
Änderungen und Erweiterungen auf dem Laufenden hielten.

Viele Grüße,

Rolf Drechsler
----- upstream answer ---

-- 
x----------------------------------------------------------------------x
|                     Never touch a running sysop.                     |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Nicolas Kratz <nick@ikarus.dyndns.org> <n_kratz@cs.uni-frankfurt.de> |
x----------------------------------------------------------------------x

Attachment: pgpfkway0btuw.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: