On Fri, 09 Jan 2015 14:00:27 +1100 Ben Finney wrote: > Riley Baird <BM-2cVqnDuYbAU5do2DfJTrN7ZbAJ246S4Xix@bitmessage.ch> > writes: [...] > > First, it have no LICESNSE file, only main source file mention > > modified BSD. I twice mailed author, but seems that he ignored my > > request to add full-fledged LICENSE file. > > The Debian Project should ideally have, not only license terms, but an > explicit grant of license. Without that, there is reasonable doubt about > whether in fact the recipient actually has any license in the work. > > This is best done by a statement such as: > > This is ‘fnordlib’. This work is free software: you are free to > perform, modify, and/or reproduce this work, under the terms of the > Apache License 2.0. See the file ‘LICENSE.ASF-2’ for exact terms. [...] I agree with what Ben wrote in his reply. I would just like to make it clear that the Apache License v2.0 was just an example of acceptable license: it's *not* the only choice to be made for the package to be considered acceptable for inclusion in the Debian archive! The "Modified BSD" license is perfectly fine too, assuming that the author of fbpdf means the 3-clause BSD license [1][2] when he/she says "Modified BSD" license. [1] https://spdx.org/licenses/BSD-3-Clause [2] http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:BSD_3Clause Moreover, any other license that makes the software comply with the DFSG will do. I hope this helps to clarify. Bye. -- 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:
pgp1CUqLkyQym.pgp
Description: PGP signature