RE: RFS: spim
OK, let's make this simple.
The Debian project has permission to distribute spim and xspim.
I'm planning on changing the license in the next release -- but not GPL, probably BSD or MIT.
Is this sufficient?
/Jim
James Larus
larus@microsoft.com
Cloud Computing Futures • Microsoft Research
http://research.microsoft.com/~larus
425-706-2981
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Finney [mailto:ben+debian@benfinney.id.au]
Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2009 3:20 PM
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Cc: Mackenzie Morgan; Jim Larus
Subject: Re: RFS: spim
Ben Finney <ben+debian@benfinney.id.au> writes:
> 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.
That's poorly phrased. While I did mean to imply that both the above should happen, there is no necessary sequence to them. That is, discussing a new set of license terms doesn't require that the release has yet happened.
> Choosing a well-understood, widely-known free-software license (e.g.
> GNU GPL or Expat terms) would make this much simpler, of course.
Meaning that it would make the discussion much quicker, and simpler to get the work into Debian.
--
\ “All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more |
`\ robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument |
_o__) than others.” —Douglas Adams |
Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>
Reply to: