On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Simon Josefsson <jas@extundo.com> writes: 1.1 Software License Permission is granted for all uses, commercial and non-commercial, of the sample code found in Section 8. Royalty free license to use, copy, modify and distribute the software found in Section 8 is granted, provided that this document is identified in all material mentioning or referencing this software, and provided that redistributed derivative works do not contain misleading author or version information. The authors make no representations concerning either the merchantability of this software or the suitability of this software for any particular purpose. It is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty of any kind. Do you see any loopholes in this that make it non-DFSG-free?
A couple that I see. They are likely "just" loopholes that the copyright holder does not intend, but I'd love to see fixed.
1) "identified in all material mentioning or referencing this software". Clearly this is outside the control of the licensee - some third party could mention or reference this software, causing you to violate the license.
2) "do not contain misleading author or version information". This is a very wide net, and if such information is part of the api (so the license disallows spoofing), is non-free. This gets us into the weird situation where the work itself is free, but there are some modifications that are allowed by the license but would be non-free due to tripping a license provision. Aside from that, "misleading" is a vague term, which will be interpreted differently every time the question is asked. Also, what about pseudonymous modifications?
-- Mark Rafn dagon@dagon.net <http://www.dagon.net/>