Re: Question about RSA licence
Francesco Poli <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Wait a second: how can it be DFSG-free, when there's permission to "copy
> and use" and to "make and use derivative works", but there's no explicit
> permission to distribute the derivative works?
> Did I miss something? [...]
You make and use the derivative, then copy and use it. Copying may
even be a type of use. It would be neater to have clear derivative
distribution permission, but unless we get a nutcase interpretation
that says they behave like UW, it's good enough for me.
> More bad news: I found out that some identically licensed files are
> included in Apache2. [...]
Apache2 has fruity NOTICE requirements anyway, doesn't it? Should
be enough to satisfy the RSA ones as consequence.
> Moreover, Apache2 includes the following code (I'm quoting from the
> debian/copyright file):
> For the srclib\apr-util\test\testmd4.c component:
> This does not even grant *any* permissions.
> Is this distributable at all?
Yes. That seems to be a copyright *notice*, not a licence.
What licence covers the file?
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct