Re: request-tracker3: license shadiness
>>>>> "Branden" == Branden Robinson <email@example.com> writes:
Branden> On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 08:35:09PM -0500, Steve Langasek
>> It seems to me that the more likely outcome in this event would
>> be a conclusion either that the license is altogether invalid,
>> or that anyone having made modifications to RT3 has failed to
>> comply with the license, resulting in a finding that anyone
>> making modifications is infringing Best Practical's copyright.
Branden> It's worth noting that both of these outcomes are not
Branden> just non-DFSG-free (which isn't a big deal to some
Branden> folks), but in the former case would make the work
Branden> undistributable even in non-free ("no license" means "no
Branden> license to redistribute freely"), and in the latter case
Branden> might render the work too crippled to distribute in
Branden> non-free according to our current practices.
I think Steve's guess at likely interpretations isincorrect but have
very low confidence in my opinion.
It seems like the best course of action at this point is to try and
seek clarification of the license. I think we all agree that if what
Best Practical is trying to do is to gain ownership of patches
submitted by their rightful owners for inclusion in the product that
doing so is DFSG free if possible.