Osamu Aoki wrote: > Thanks for saving lost soul. > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 12:58:28AM -0800, Josh Triplett wrote: >>This clause is universally interpreted to mean that the permission is >>granted and you don't need to pay a fee to get that permission; in other >>words, "for any purpose and without fee is granted" is equivalent to >>"for any purposes is granted without fee". A quick google over the >>debian-legal archives shows that this issue has been discussed and >>resolved as early as 1999, and that it nevertheless comes up numerous >>times after that. > > Hmmm. I see. Good explanation, thanks. I also found: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/08/msg00049.html > > Good old BSD license variants... Further check dropped me to: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/02/msg00102.html > > This was good reference. So this license in _process.py is GPL > incompatible as is. subprocess.py one is GPL compatible. I don't see how those messages give you the impression that this license is not GPL-compatible. The license is in fact a BSD license, sans advertising clause, and is thus GPL-compatible. - Josh Triplett
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature