On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 02:26:16AM +0300, Gerasimos Melissaratos wrote: > Below I include the answer I got from Mr Nenzi about the ngspice licencing. > In short, I asked him about the possibility of a re-release of ngspice with > the new BSD license or something else compatible with Debian. The short > answer is no. Doesn't the message cited below indicate that ngspice is available under 4-clause BSD? Who ever said that the old BSD license wasn't allowed in Debian? -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/ > --------------------------------------------------- > Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 21:39:52 +0200 Download Re: ngspice licencing.msg > From: Paolo Nenzi <p.nenzi@ieee.org> Import addresses p.nenzi@ieee.org Block > email p.nenzi@ieee.org Block SMTP Relay relay-pt4.poste.it > Reply-to: p.nenzi@ieee.org > To: Gerasimos Melissaratos <gmelis@mfa.gr> > Subject: Re: ngspice licencing All headers > > Dear Gerasimos, > > Sorry for this delay in answering but I am on holidays and have some > spare time to scan the messages on ngspice lists. > > The licensing of ngspice is quite intricated but, AFAIK ngspice cannot > be packaged for official-debian. You can consider ngspice covered by the > old BSD license (the one with the obnoxiuous clause). Look at the Xspice > license, since ngspice includes xspice, then its license applies too. > > Hope to have answered to your question. I am sorry but I did not succeed > in asking Berkeley's Regents for a license change. > > Ciao, > Paolo > --------------------------------------------------- > > On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 00:03:56 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote > > On Thursday 21 July 2005 04:49 pm, Gerasimos Melissaratos wrote: > > > > > I'd like to create a package for ng-spice, which seems to be governed by > > > two licenses, which I include herein. In first reading I cannot see any > > > real discrepancies, but of course IANAL. Pls tell me if any of them is > > > compatible with DFSG. > > > > I'm surprised no one has responded to this yet... so I guess I'll get > > the ball rolling. Its my opinion that both licenses are non-free, for > > reasonably well established and non-controversial reasons. > > > > License 1 contains a limitation on use ("educational, research and non- > > profit purposes, without fee") which is a violation of DFSG #6. > > License 2 is less obvious, but I personally believe that a provision > > that forbids charging a fee for distribution is non-free, or at least > > bad policy. Certainly having a package that prohibits charging for > > distribution would prevent it from being on a Debian CD sold by one of > > the vendors. Based on the DFSG I'd have to point to #1 and #6... but > > both are kind of stretches. > > > > Anyone else have thoughts? > > > > -- > > Sean Kellogg > > 3rd Year - University of Washington School of Law > > Graduate & Professional Student Senate Treasurer > > UW Service & Activities Committee Interim Chair > > w: http://probonogeek.blogspot.com > > > > So, let go > > ...Jump in > > ...Oh well, what you waiting for? > > ...it's all right > > ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown > > > -- > Gerasimos Melissaratos (gmelis@mfa.gr) > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature