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

Re: "VIGRA Artistic License" changes

"Florent Bayle" <florent@sarcelle.net> wrote in message 200510071600.07567.florent@sarcelle.net">news:200510071600.07567.florent@sarcelle.net...
From: Ullrich Koethe <koethe@informatik.uni-hamburg.de>:
Would the suggested changes satisfy the Debian folks? Another option would
be to place VIGRA under either the artistic license (in its current
version) and the GPL, at the discretion of the user.

Well I think the changes suggested make it probably DFSG-free. The only last thing I see is this:

>     b. use the modified Library only within your corporation or
>     organization.

This does not let me (a regular person) make a private modifed copy.
Perhaps saying 'use the modified version privately, which includes use limited to within your corporation, or organization'. would work. That sounds awful though.

As for GPL comptability, there are possibly a few other issues, but they depend on interpretation. The dual-licencing with the GPL is widely accepted, and ensures that your program is gpl compatible even if your desired 'less restrictive' terms have uncertain gpl compatibility.

Should Ullrich Koethe decide to dual licence, then unless the package contains stolen code, kiddie pr0n, or somthing similar, I doubt debian-legal will have any objections.

Florent Bayle, if by monday nobody else has written please pass the concepts found in this message upstream.

Reply to: