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

Re: RFS: spim

Mackenzie Morgan <macoafi@gmail.com> writes:

> On Monday 19 October 2009 3:42:31 am Ben Finney wrote:
> > Perhaps the copyright holder doesn't realise that, if he grants
> > additional permissions that “welcome packaging and redistribution”,
> > that *is* changing the license (at least, the license as received by
> > Debian). The license terms become a union of what he's initially
> > written plus that extra permission statement.
> Being not on the DL mailing list I don't know if there's been any
> movement.

As I understand it, ‘debian-legal’ has discussed as far as it can go for
now. The movement needs to come from the copyright holder.

> I talked to Larus (CC'd here) about it and he said he'd be willing to
> send a statement directly to the list.

Far better than a separate statement in email, the full license terms
should simply be updated in a new release of the work. That way, every
recipient has access to the full terms under which they can act.

Then the new license terms can be discussed as a whole here on
‘debian-legal’ to see what problems remain.

Choosing a well-understood, widely-known free-software license (e.g. GNU
GPL or Expat terms) would make this much simpler, of course.

 \       “… one of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was |
  `\        that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful |
_o__)                  termination of their C programs.” —Robert Firth |
Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>

Reply to: