[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: bsd & modified bsd clarification

Hi Don & Charles,

On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 09:32:39AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> first of all let me just clarify that DEP-5 is only a proposal now, and that it
> can be subjected to many changes before it is accepted.

Ah - in that case, would you recommend using this format now, accepting
that I may have to change it later, or hold off and not use it at all until
it's more stable?

In a package where the copyright and license was clearer (assuming such a
mythical thing exists), I might not have considered using it, but in Dwoo
there's at least modified BSD and LGPL (actually I didn't consider whether
mixing these was a problem, I hope it's not!), and different
authors/copyright holders of different plugins, so it seemed to make sense.

> Whichever solution is adopted in DEP-5 to underline that license A is derived
> from license B, unless your program is part of the BSD distribution and is
> copyright by the regents of the university of California, you can not use
> the copy in /usr/share/common-license and have to include it verbatim. Luckily,
> it is short :)

Yep, I already did that, no problems there.

I wonder if http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ might be more clearer
about this.  I would submit a patch, but as has been made clear, I am no
license expert ;)

Thank you both for your replies.


/* ---------------------------------------------------
Penny Leach | http://mjollnir.org | http://she.geek.nz
GPG: 8347 00FC B5BF 6CC0 0FC9 AB90 1875 120A A30E C22B
--------------------------------------------------- */

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: