On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 23:46:52 +0200 Mattia Dongili wrote:
Hi Mattia! :)
[...]
> [debian-legal: please Cc me as I'm not subscribed]
Done.
>
> I'm not very comfortable with the licence language and I'd like
> somebody to proof-read it before uploading this stuff.
> I'd say this licence grants enough rights, but there are also a lot of
> "must".
> BTW: on [1] it's reported that the code has been GPLed for the Linux
> package but I'd say that it's referring to the kernel code only:
>
> # grep -r GPL *
> changes.txt:MODULE_LICENSE("GPL") to all modules.
> tools/acpisrc/asmain.c:" * GNU General Public License (\"GPL\")
> version 2 as published by the Free\n"
Quoting from http://developer.intel.com/technology/iapc/acpi/faq.htm :
| Q9. Under what licensing is the source released?
| A9. ACPI CA can be licensed under the GNU General Public License or
| via a separate license that may be more favorable to commercial OSVs.
| Please see the source code license header for specifics.
It seems that this software is meant to be dual licensed under
GPL/proprietary license.
You should perhaps seek clarification from upstream about this point.
Is the whole software package really licensed under the GNU GPL or
separate license at the user's option?
If this is the case, any concern about the separate license is moot.
We would have a DFSG-free license choice and could ignore the other
possible choice.
>
> Can somebody help?
> http://developer.intel.com/technology/iapc/acpi/license2.htm
[...]
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpMJRsQWBETk.pgp
Description: PGP signature