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. Bye. -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ 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:
pgpwvXo3iLHN2.pgp
Description: PGP signature