Re: New Ion3 licence
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 11:00:06AM +0100, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au> writes:
> > Stephen Gran <sgran@debian.org> writes:
> >
> > > This one time, at band camp, Francesco Poli said:
> > > > On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 19:27:57 +0100 Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [...]
> > > > > While I doubt I would have trouble updating the package within
> > > > > 28 days of an upstream release, I doubt that Debian would like
> > > > > to commit to that, and certainly the package would have to
> > > > > remain unreleased.
> > > >
> > > > It would also require the package(s) to be moved to the non-free
> > > > archive, I think.
> > >
> > > Then I think you've misread. Patch clauses and name change clauses are
> > > explicitly allowed under the DFSG
> >
> > They're explicitly allowed (though discouraged, as you noted) when the
> > requirement is in place for *modified* works. The license in question
> > is requiring a name change for even *unmodified* works, and that's
> > non-free.
>
> But if I rename before uploading the package to Debian, then that
> provision is nullified. So I think the licence would then be free in so
> far as it applied to the Debian package. Right?
Note the wording makes it pretty much apply to everything, including the
renamed version debian would redistribute, so, for example, derivative
distributions should use yet another name...
Mike
Reply to: