[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [Pkg-pascal-devel] DFSG-ness of two

On Sun, 31 May 2015 14:11:43 +0200 Paul Gevers wrote:

> > The second license appears to be clearly non-free: it fails to
> > explicitly grant permission to copy, redistribute, and modify (it just
> > talks about "using", which is a vague term)
> Are you sure? Clause 3 says:
> "3) If you modify and/or distribute the code to any third party then you
> must not veil the original author." To me this says that you are allowed
> to modify and distribute, just not veil authorship.

That's what I said: it fails to *explicitly* grant permission to copy,
redistribute, and modify; it just *implicitly* says that you allowed
to modify and distribute.

> Is even this not enough?

It *may* be considered to be more or less enough, although it lacks some
clarity (which would be much much appreciated, lest we later face some
unexpected contorted interpretation of a non-clear license text...).

> Indeed, it doesn't mention copy. This doesn't help the
> unfreeness about selling it.

And this is the main reason why I think this second license fails to
meet the DFSG: it forbids anyone to sell aggregate software
distributions containing the file, as I have already said.

> > I recommend you to get in touch with the copyright owner of this second
> > file and try to persuade him to re-license the file under DFSG-free
> > terms, such as, for instance, the Expat license [2].
> I will.

Thanks a lot, this is very appreciated.


 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

Attachment: pgpy3P3jiT21l.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: