Re: public domain no modification: Expat
FYI, upstream agreed to change the pseudo public domain license into
an MIT one (expat):
Thanks everyone for comments/suggestions.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Francesco Poli
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 15:10:26 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:01:45AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
>> > That's not my understanding of the issue under consideration: more
>> > details are included in my own analysis .
>> Yes, because as usual your analysis is way out in left field.
> I really cannot understand the reason for all this hatred.
> Did I do any nasty things to you in the past?
> Are you unable to have a discussion without indulging in ad hominem
>> > My impression is that clause 2 introduces odd restrictions on how
>> > modified versions are packaged
>> "package" is synonymous with "name" in this case. DFSG#4 says free works
>> may require a name change when modified.
> As Walter Landry pointed out , these packaging restrictions
> interfere with the ability to create drop-in replacements and with the
> freedom to translate the work into other programming languages.
> These restrictions seem to go beyond what is allowed by DFSG#4.
>  http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2012/04/msg00017.html
>> > and insists that modifications be documented in comments (which, depending
>> > on how it is interpreted, may be a very strong restriction).
>> You mean like this restriction?
>> a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
>> stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
> No, I mean like the restriction actually included in the clause under
> discussion: "the modifications are documented in comments".
> This restriction looks definitely different from the one you quoted
> from the GNU GPL v2.
> The GPL just requires me to write notices where I state that I
> changed the files and the date of any change.
> On the other hand, the restriction under discussion requires me to
> document the modifications in comments. As noted by Walter Landry ,
> this forces the use of comments, which may be syntactically
> unavailable in some cases.
> Moreover, this restriction is a bit vague, and could be even
> interpreted as requiring that the reasoning behind each modification is
> explained and discussed thoroughly in comments. This would be a very
> good documenting practice, but mandating it through licensing terms
> looks fairly overreaching (at least to me).
>> You know, the one in the GPLv2?
>> Your claims that this may be non-free are absurd.
> I don't think so, since, as explained above, the restriction under
> consideration is different from the one found in the GNU GPL v2.
> New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
> ..................................................... Francesco Poli .
> GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE