On Wed, Oct 03, 2001 at 05:18:04PM +0100, Wookey wrote: > On Tue 04 Sep, Phil Blundell wrote: > > >as it basically worked. Given that rmk has mostly lost interest in > > >the RiscPC these days he may well now be happy to fully free this > > >code so we can just use that? > > > > Did you ask him about this? > > Yes, but got no answer. I just poked him and got the response below, which > I think means no, he doesn't want to change the license, and it's doesn't > agree it's non-free. he could be right - I suggest we ask debian-legal to > give a ruling. > > ------- > On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 03:08:03PM +0100, Wookey wrote: > > > 2. You may modify the sources at your own will. However, if you modify > > > the sources or use the sources in your own programs, you must give > > > due credit to the original author which must be visible to the user > > > of your program. > > > > Whilst of course no-one has any desire to remove due credit for your work, > > this sort of restriction is not permitted. (A license can say that the > > license terms must be transferred unchanged to any sub-licensees, but they > > do not allow upstream to restrict the right of source code modification).
No, that sort of restriction is fine (it's just BSD clause 2 ...), assuming that you consider e.g. program documentation to be "visible to the user of your program". > 1. Modifications should come back to me. This is to prevent the current > situation where people have long outstanding patches against the Linux > kernel sitting around that we, as a community, never see. If anything, > this is a requirement I want to tighten up. This I'm not sure about. -legal? -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
