Re: About a license of a package.
Muammar El Khatib <muammarelkhatib@gmail.com> writes:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MakeHuman© code is released under GNU General Public License (GPL v.3)
^^^^^^^
>
> Copyright© 2001-2007 makehuman.org
>
> This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> the Free Software Foundation, version 2. This program is distributed
^^^^^^^^^
Contradictory. It's possible that this could be interpreted as
"licensed under your choice of GPLv2 or GPLv3", but I would strongly
suspect the intent of the copyright holder is something else. You need
to determine exactly what they mean by this.
> MakeHuman© mesh is released under MIT License
Not unambiguous; there are several incompatible sets of license terms
that MIT have released their code under. You might encourage the
copyright holder to instead refer to "the Expat license", which is
exactly the same as the license terms they've set out here but is less
ambiguously named.
> Copyright© 2001-2007 makehuman.org
>
> [MIT/Expat license terms]
> MHskin shader© code is released under GNU General Public License (GPL v.3)
^^^^^^^
>
> Copyright © 2001-2007 makehuman.org
>
> This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> the Free Software Foundation, version 2. This program is distributed
^^^^^^^^^
Same contradictory license grant as given above, with the same
clarification required.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Do you see anything wrong in this? Is the software copyrighted well,
The '©' symbols after the names (e.g. "Makehuman©") are extraneous;
they're not like '®' or '™' symbols that need to be affixed to the
name under trademark law. Instead, the '©' makes sense only in the
declaration of copyright ("Copyright © 2001-2007 John Doe").
The copyright declaration as written is only valid if "makehuman.org"
is a legal entity that can hold copyright in a work. I don't believe a
website is a legal copyright-holding entity; you should find out who
*really* holds copyright in the work and correct the copyright notice.
> and suitable for Debian?
Once the above issues with license versions are clarified, it would
seem the work is licensed freely.
> My doubt comes because of the redirects to a com site.
There's nothing about free software that makes it incompatible with
being hosted at a dot-com site. Free software *is* commercial software
<URL:http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html>, after all.
> I'd be glad if you give me your thoughts about this software.
Hope that helps.
--
\ "If you were going to shoot a mime, would you use a silencer?" |
`\ —Steven Wright |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Reply to: