On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 16:43:32 -0400 Luke Faraone wrote: > Hi, > > I last asked about the Alice project at > http://www.mail-archive.com/debian-legal@lists.debian.org/msg39534.html. > They have since changed their license to include a 5th clause. Wow, things are getting worse, rather than better... :-( My personal recommendation was to persuade upstream to drop restrictive clauses, not to add another one! http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/01/msg00030.html > > Upstream URL, if you care: http://alice.org > > Is this DFSG-free, assuming I either A) get permission from CMU to call my > debian package "Alice" or B) change the name to something else, like > "Carol", in addition to removing the gallery and art assets? If you remove the non-free gallery and art assets (as you really should do), clause 5 seems to become moot. As a consequence, I think you'll get the same answers as you got back on January. At least, I think my personal analysis still holds: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/01/msg00025.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2009/01/msg00030.html > > > By the way, I'm not subscribed to the list, so please CC me on replies. Done. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgp4KChweVhyw.pgp
Description: PGP signature