FYI, upstream agreed to change the pseudo public domain license into
an MIT one (expat):
Thanks everyone for comments/suggestions.
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Francesco Poli
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 15:10:26 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:01:45AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> That's not my understanding of the issue under consideration: more
> details are included in my own analysis .
Yes, because as usual your analysis is way out in left field.
I really cannot understand the reason for all this hatred.
Did I do any nasty things to you in the past?
Are you unable to have a discussion without indulging in ad hominem
> My impression is that clause 2 introduces odd restrictions on how
> modified versions are packaged
"package" is synonymous with "name" in this case. DFSG#4 says free works
may require a name change when modified.
As Walter Landry pointed out , these packaging restrictions
interfere with the ability to create drop-in replacements and with the
freedom to translate the work into other programming languages.
These restrictions seem to go beyond what is allowed by DFSG#4.
> and insists that modifications be documented in comments (which, depending
> on how it is interpreted, may be a very strong restriction).
You mean like this restriction?
a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
No, I mean like the restriction actually included in the clause under
discussion: "the modifications are documented in comments".
This restriction looks definitely different from the one you quoted
from the GNU GPL v2.
The GPL just requires me to write notices where I state that I
changed the files and the date of any change.
On the other hand, the restriction under discussion requires me to
document the modifications in comments. As noted by Walter Landry ,
this forces the use of comments, which may be syntactically
unavailable in some cases.
Moreover, this restriction is a bit vague, and could be even
interpreted as requiring that the reasoning behind each modification is
explained and discussed thoroughly in comments. This would be a very
good documenting practice, but mandating it through licensing terms
looks fairly overreaching (at least to me).
You know, the one in the GPLv2?
Your claims that this may be non-free are absurd.
I don't think so, since, as explained above, the restriction under
consideration is different from the one found in the GNU GPL v2.
New GnuPG key, see the transition document!
. Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com