Robert Davies wrote: > At 09:22 a.m. 25/10/2005 +0200, you wrote: > >> <file://F:\EUDORA\ATTACH\newmat licence.ems <0880.0002>>newmat >> licence.ems > > > These are three possibilities. > > (1) I send you an email saying that distributing modified versions is OK > provided you make it clear which bits are yours and which bits are > mine. I > also include this in the next version of newmat11. > > (2) I make a new version of newmat10 and include this in the > documentation > and possibly in a separate license file. I am not very keen on doing this > since I don't want to keep updating newmat10. > > (3) I include one of the open source license agreements, probably the MIT > one, as it seems the shortest one that I have found so far that meets my > requirements. But I still don't understand exactly what the legal > stuff means. > > Would option (1) be sufficient? > > I hope to declare version 11 as being the current version sometime > soon, but I > have been hoping to do this for ages so I don't really know when it > will happen. > > Robert > > > > > > Hi robert, Thank you for your fast response let me forward your response to 335185@bugs.debian.org ( you can use this email for keeping contact w/ the debian pple instead of mine ) I Also think your Third option is the best, as suggested at http://bugs.debian.org/335185 : <Francesco> If the author really meant to make his software Free, it seems that he wanted a simple permissive non-copyleft license. I would suggest upstream author to change the license to the Expat (a.k.a. MIT) license: http://www.jclark.com/xml/copying.txt </Francesco> BTW, If you are about to repackage newmat-1.10.3 (10c) I can help with some recomandations like those noted at http://rzr.online.fr/q/Convention
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature