On Sun, 25 Jan 2015 03:35:59 +0100 Jürgen Weigert wrote: > The language you quote is exactly what I meant. Perfect! Thanks a lot for confirming. :-) > It is identical to the original MIT X11 License as found at > e.g. opensource.org . Expat seems to advocate a new name for > the same thing. Fine with me. Calling it Expat/MIT license is just a way to unambiguously refer to one of the variants that are often called "MIT license": https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Expat > > I also believe that this license is sufficiently permissive on its > own. But I want to explicitly express GPL compatibility without > giving an interpretation of either license. That's fine. Thanks again for your kind help in solving this licensing issue. I have just filed a bug report against the Debian vim-common package, in order to have this (new) licensing status of xxd properly documented in the debian/copyright file of the package. The bug report is #776191: https://bugs.debian.org/776191 -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ fsck is a four letter word... ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
Attachment:
pgpyA15QIWaBL.pgp
Description: PGP signature