Re: fbpdf license doubt
> First, it have no LICESNSE file, only main source file mention
> modified BSD.
First,
If the main source file is the only source file, then specify modified BSD
in it is sufficient.
If the main source file said something like 'fbpdf (or this program is
licensed on modified BSD), then it is equivalent to putting a LICENSE file.
If the main source file only said 'under modified BSD', (and there are other
source files), then only the main file is under modified BSD, the other source
files are not!
Second,
Does it include the license text of modified BSD, or put a link of the
url to the
licence text?
If not, then the term `modified BSD` is vague.
For example, FSF refers the revised BSD-3 as Modified BSD, and
others generally use this term in the same meaning.
But it does not forbidden any other people modify BSD and call it
Modified BSD.
And `modified BSD` is more vague than `Modified BSD`.
Please note that I am not a lawyer.
If in doubt, please bring this issue to debian-legal.
> provides binaries `fbpdf` and `fbpdf2`, functionally identical, but
> having different dependencies. I am not sure what to do with it.
Maybe this is intend for different users preferring different dependencies.
Since the functionality is identical,
I think you should choose the binary which depends on more common
dependencies or less dependencies.
Reply to: