Re: Joke non-free clauses?
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:42:22 +0800
"Shan-Bin Chen (DreamerC)" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> They forked a new version from 0.9.2 , and the library in Debian is 0.9.3 .
> I think the problem that could be solved between versions.
> Because the authors in deadbeef want to release with GPL and LGPL Version 2,
> I'm seriously concerned about this joke.
> What kind license could they use in '0.9.3'? is BSD ok? or GPL?
As I understand it, the addition of Clause 8 should have solved this problem, and they should be able to go ahead and use 0.9.3. Please let me know if this is not the case.
I forget precisely what the problem was. It's something about DUMB's licence placing restrictions that the GPL forbids, but that doesn't quite make sense to me since the restrictions are only on DUMB which is not licensed under the GPL. If anyone would be kind enough to clarify for me, it would be much appreciated :)
I should also like to apologise if I have offended anyone, either with the licence itself or during any discussion of the licence that has taken place. It was never my intention to cause any problems. I hope everyone can take the jokes in the spirit they were intended. After all, this must be one of the more interesting problems you guys have had to solve, and I hope I have brought some comic relief to the job. :)
The non-joke parts of DUMB's licence are copied almost verbatim from zlib's licence, incidentally.