Re: ad hoc license: is it DFSG-conformant ?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hello Forum:
thanks a lot for your constructive comments.
On 12/03/16 04:37, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 01:39:12PM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit :
>> Jerome BENOIT <calculus@rezozer.net> writes:
>>
>>> On 11/03/16 21:15, Riley Baird wrote:
>>>> That licence is fine.
>>>>
>>> So now step forward in peace.
>>
>> Before achieving peace, please see the rest of the thread in
>> ‘debian-legal’; I disagree with Riley's assessment.
>
> Hi Ben,
>
> this ad-hoc license is obviously not of the same quality as some general
> license written with lawyer advice, but I think that the missing explicit
> permission is a honest imperfection, especially that the software has already
> been redistributed for years, and that its relicensing was explicitely done to
> further facilitate the redistribution and incorporation in larger works. The
> license that we are discussing allows redistribution, and one person receiving
> the sources will receive them with a copy of the license, so the author
> probably considers it obvious that the recipient can use the software under
> that license, and that this does not have to be explicitely written.
>
> In my opinion, this software is DFSG-free, even if its license text could be
> improved or replaced by a more general, frequently used and well-understood
> license
>
I have asked for clarification to the upstream team.
> Have a nice week-end,
>
Best regards,
Jerome
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJW5H0oAAoJEIC/w4IMSybjO4oIAJlbKDpxtAJ+JhUKESa72mK1
JDeF5zgS4IRncoqVQ6u3xHaCAbgQnqecQBTPAeQ+V3hKC24x5l0Jt5x74SX18oGy
kSyLybGRhYN4sDNojhlgGGZMcOcKzMNWqEbFeafNDJ7kDLFhwplZ4M3dHSjPqi+Q
u9fT2/XdgDj6aKdB6BYsTe4tsbhmQk4dT116WOh/I3/zKFUet+cBzHN678/wXAim
1zZDZPNFGVPzsBTT4xxyh1NK9nsz1BVTKrW4voHbB4Shvrc5bAUmLuafqGSO9yur
b01d6vYVvjgMo3IJrWFZxzF7h+O6f5TTTH47KsQbUeQYi9tDhh6WFJi1xurIccM=
=clNc
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: