On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:28:32 -0500 Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 07:22:09PM +0100, Luca Brivio wrote: > > > As someone said, this is the old Apache license. "XXX may not > > > appear in the name of derivative works" is ugly and over-reaching; > > > I think it should be considered non-free (it clearly exceeds > > > DFSG#4), but I don't feel strongly enough to make a fuss about it. > > > I really wish people > > > would stop using this license; it's one thing Apache has given > > > free software that it really was better without ... > > > > I think they used that license for that something of their source > > derives from Apache software. There was an actual difference if they > > did adopt the new 'Apache License' (Version 2.0, January 2004)? > > Sorry if I was unclear. The Apache 1.1 license (which this is based > on) is considered free--it can go in main. It would be nice if > propagation of this license could be avoided by switching to a better > one--it's not the best license, with the problems I and Matthew > mentioned--but there's currently no requirement to do so to go in > Debian. You were not unclear. The current license is free, but what would you suggest them? -- Luca Brivio Web: http://icebrook.altervista.org Jabber: lucab83@jabber.org ________________________________________________________________________ "Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto" (P. Terentius Afer) ________________________________________________________________________
Attachment:
pgp1kVpHe81dd.pgp
Description: PGP signature