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

Re: cc65 licensing

Hash: SHA1

Ullrich von Bassewitz wrote:
| Huh? The docs and the web page do *clearly* state that this is not the case.
| The web page for example says:
|   Until today, I have rewritten large parts of the compiler, all of the
|   library, completely replaced the assembler, the linker and the librarian,
|   and added a frontend to simplify use.
| What exactly is unclear about this information?

That it's not in the source files themselves. When you look at _just that
part_ of the code tree, there are no indicators that any of that code wasn't
written by you. This caused me some confusion, as I'm used to being able to
find any relevant licensing info at the beginning of a source file,
especially given that the code had apparently conflicting licenses. (Certain
packages have been kept out of (or removed from) Debian because source files
either lacked a copyright notice, or had a copyright notice that was in
conflict with the rest of the source package.) But this is a non-issue now,
as you've clarified it. I'll be looking forward to the day when all the old
code is gone and this can get tossed in 'main'. :)

| *snip*
| I have to admit that I don't know enough about debian policy to comment on
| that. Experience with other software written by me is that debian maintainers
| are often willing to bend their own rules, so even if I would know more about
| debian policies, this would not mean that I could predict what a debian
| maintainer will do:-)

Well, legal issues are a pretty serious thing as far as Debian in concerned,
~ so 'bending' the legal rules tends to get pretty well frowned upon. The
'trip' clause here is the 'only for a nominal fee' part of the original cc65
license. It's rather ironic, I think, that a license purporting to borrow
from the GPL ends up being non-free.

| What I can say is this: The old license which does still cover parts of the
| compiler is definitely no free software license according to OSI. The new
| license, which covers everything but the compiler, is the zlib license, which
| is an approved free software license. It is up to you to act according to this
| information.

Yeah, so it means that most of cc65 will end up in 'contrib', which is where
software that is otherwise able to go into 'main' but requires something
from 'non-free' to run (as is the case here) ends up. The compiler will have
to go into 'non-free' by itself.

By the way, do you have any idea why the person who prepared the debian/
folder in the tarball never actually included it in Debian? It could have
been in 'non-free' all this time. :)
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


Reply to: