On Tue, Jan 04, 2005 at 03:13:36AM -0500, Hubert Chan wrote: > >>>>> "Antonio" == Antonio Ognio <aognio@gmail.com> writes: > Antonio> httplog > Antonio> ------- > > Antonio> Main problem I have with this package is it's license: Free > Antonio> Software License. Haven't yet realized if this is a custom > Antonio> license from the upstream author or something else but quite > Antonio> little known. The relevant parts are here: > > If you want a real opinion, you should ask on debian-legal, but here are > my non-professional (unprofessional? ;-) ) opinions. I'll add my d-legal-lurker opinions. > Antonio> TERMS AND CONDITIONS > > Antonio> 1. You may make copies of the Software. > > No problems here. ;-) Although it's good to be careful of a clause such as this -- "copies" should be interpreted as "verbatim copies", which means that unless the licence allows you to prepare and distribute derived works, there is no licence to modify, which is very non-free. > Antonio> 2. You may prepare derivative works based on the Software, > Antonio> provided the following conditions are met: i) All modifications > Antonio> to the Software must be prominently declared in the same file > Antonio> as the modification, and must include the date of the > Antonio> modification and the person who made the modification. > > A bit of a strange condition (requiring changes to be documented), IMHO, > but I don't think that makes it non-free. Requiring changes to be documented isn't a problem (the GPL requires that), but requiring the identity of the person who made the modification isn't widely regarded as being free. > Antonio> 3. You have the right to make available to the public copies of > Antonio> the Software or derivative works of the Software, provided the > Antonio> following conditions are met: i) Copies in any form must retain > Antonio> all copyright notices, all notices that refer to this License, > Antonio> and must include this License, without modification. > > Pretty standard condition, I think. Indeed. > Antonio> ii) The name of any Copyright Owner may not be used to endorse > Antonio> or promote products either containing, or derived from the > Antonio> Software. > > Again, I think this is fairly standard. A similar clause is in the BSD > license. It's also a no-op, and I cannot work out why people still insist on putting it into licences. You're not allowed to pretend I endorse something without my consent, because it's misrepresentation -- it's criminal fraud, and civil libel. > Antonio> This means the package would go in 'contrib' or 'non-free'?? > > It looks free to me. My only possible concern would be clause 2i. But, > again, you should probably ask debian-legal before you try to get this > into Debian. Definitely get the opinion of the mavens. I think that there'll be big concerns with 2i. - Matt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature