On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 04:28:30PM +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
> Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> writes:
> > Based on http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT
> >
> > This is a template. Complete and ship as file LICENSE the following 2
> > lines (only)
> >
> > YEAR:
> > COPYRIGHT HOLDER:
> >
> > and specify as
> >
> > License: MIT + file LICENSE
> >
> > Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <COPYRIGHT HOLDER>
>
> I don't think any of the above text implies a *requirement* on the
> recipient of the license.
even if it mayb not be a requirement it is still followed.
> Indeed, the license grant begins at the standard “MIT” (which is
> Expat-equivalent) permission grant:
> >
>
> > a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
> > "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
> > without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
> > distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
> > permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
> > the following conditions:
> >
> > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
> > included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
>
> That alone grants all the DFSG-conformant freedoms. I don't think
> anything else in the text is rightly interpreted to restrict those
> freedoms in any way.
Yes, I see how the MIT license is DFSG-free. What I'm saying is that
IMHO the only license requirement (the second paragraph of it that you
reported above, about including the copyright notice *and* the
permission notice in any copy of the software) is not fulfilled by R
packages.
> It would be better if the guidelines were more clearly phrased to be
> guidance for *how* to apply the license; as it is, they are terse and
> too easily misread. But I think a careful reading would not imply any
> extra restriction on the license recipient.
I haven't read any extra restriction, what I read is that this "how to
apply the license" breaks the license requirements.
> So in my opinion, this is just a clumsy way to present a page that
> nevertheless is an explicit grant of the standard Expat license
> conditions in a work.
>
> In short: this does not IMO disqualify the work from conforming to the
> DFSG.
but IMO it disqualifies the work from conforming to the MIT
requirements.
--
regards,
Mattia Rizzolo
GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18 4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540 .''`.
more about me: http://mapreri.org : :' :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia `-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature