Re: cc65 licensing (was: cc65 license check -- main or non-free?)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote:
| There is no need to reference a license in a source file for it to be valid.
| Source code is copyrighted with or without referencing a license in the files
| itself. Apart from that, the old license is part of the compiler source tree
True, but the old license says 'any file that references this license', and
none do, which makes figuring that out non-obvious just from looking at that
part of the source tree. At first glance it looks like all the code is yours.
| I don't know which old sources you used. I run indent over the code, changed
| names of many identifiers, added braces and similar things. So just running
| diff may not show any matches but there is indeed old code in the current
| (2.10.1) compiler. For code to be copyrighted, formatting and naming of
| variables doesn't matter.
I grabbed a file called 'cc65-src.arc', I can't remember where from now
(some emulation site), but it claims to be the code from the 1989 compiler.
| That is covered in the docs: Anything besides the compiler proper is complete
| rewrite. The compiler itself does contain old code. The old code may not be
| visible on the first glance, because of indentation and naming changes, but
| it's definitely there. The amount is constantly decreasing, but currently the
| old copyright is still valid. Once this changes, it will be noted in the docs.
Given that I can't find anything from a cursory glance, would it be possible
for you to provide an example? Also, is there some % figure you can give me,
out of curiosity?
| The old license does still apply, which means that the package is not suitable
| for the inclusion in Debian.
Well, the compiler can't go in 'main', given what you've told me, but it
sounds like the rest can go in 'contrib' (given that it's suitable for
Debian, but relies on software that's not), and the compiler dumped into
'non-free'. If you don't mind, could you CC any other replies to
firstname.lastname@example.org so they can be threaded in? Thanks for your time.
[ Note to d-legal: Ouch, looks like I was wrong. Better fiddle with the
control file... ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----