On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 05:44:44PM -0500, Steve Halasz wrote: > I would appreciate a thumbs up or down on the dfsg compliance of the > attached license before I put time into packaging. I suspect there might > be issues with these requirements: > > iii) You are not permitted to change the ECW file format. > iv) You are not permitted to use Software Product for development or > distribution of "Server Software" that provides services or > functionality on a computer acting as a server. I don't feel up to reading the very badly formatted license text tonight, but either of those two clauses is very definitely non-free. If that's what it really says then this is not a free software license by any reasonable definition. > And is it ok to link GDAL(MIT license) against this library? I find it difficult to imagine a scenario where it wasn't okay to link something MIT-licensed to anything (although you may be prohibited from modifying the work at all). -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature