Re: RFS (or feedback): chuck
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 08:05, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 10:48:21PM +0100, James Westby a écrit :
> > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
> > included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
> >
> > Any person wishing to distribute modifications to the Software is
> > requested to send the modifications to the original developer so that
> > they can be incorporated into the canonical version.
>
> (...)
>
> > The second clause [...] is probably not DFSG-free.
>
> Hi all,
Hello,
> In a program I am packaging, there was a clause where the users were
> requested to cite a relevant article when publishing the results. I
> enquired about this to the upstream author, and he confirmed that by
> "requested" they did not mean "required".
See also #354899 about 'required' vs. 'requested'. If the author confirms in a
GPG signed mail that it is really optional and it is left at the licensee's
discretion then it if most probably safe to use. OTOH I always wonder why
people stipulate such informational and optional points in the license text
itself making it look obscure. If these are in fact optional there are
READMEs, webpages, and so forth to express your further optional preferences
as well, not the license text itself.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB
Reply to: