On Tue, 5 May 2009 12:38:20 +0200 jochen georges wrote: > hello, > > good news ! :-) > > i asked the author, if he would like to change the licence and he will. This seems to be really good news. But there's a problem, as explained below. > ############# > > ... > > "4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code > The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form > _only_ if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the > source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The > license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified > source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name > or version number from the original software. > " > > would you like to change the licence a little bit? > > you can protect the integrity of your code, if you allow the patch-files! > in the end it is the same than subclassing it, but it is compatible with the > terms of "free open source software". Please note patch-only licenses are acceptable because of DFSG#4, but are GPL-incompatible nonetheless. The zlib license, which I suggested, is a perfectly fine free software license, and it's GPL-compatible. It's not a license that only permits modifications in patch form (as allowed by DFSG#4): it's more permissive than that! I hope I was clear enough (I am in a hurry!). I again recommend to persuade the author to relicense under a well-known GPL-compatible license, such as the zlib license. I would avoid suggesting patch-only licenses. My usual disclaimers: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. -- 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:
pgpeLlUJo8Dd1.pgp
Description: PGP signature