> On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 01:35:48PM +0000, Sunnanvind wrote: > Er, no, that's not how you read it. You conjectured just like I did. > The actual license text says nothing of the sort.
Ehm, yes. That's what I meant. Sorry. > > Here, I disagree. > > This is a different situation since in the case of Zope, the button > would > > be forcibly placed; with your interpretation of how this license is > > intended (as opposed to what it says - again, it has to be cleaned > up), > > Look, a copyright holder can "intend" to put his work under the MIT > license, but if his actual license text consists of the GNU GPL, guess > while one is binding upon the users? The GPL of course; that's why I did say that it has to be cleaned up (and I did mean before it's admitted into Debian, but I was unclear there). > Where license text is not DFSG-free, but the author's intentions are, > it > is best to get the author to rewrite his license. Of course... > License texts are legal documents and anyone who takes it upon him- or > herself to write one needs to be damn careful about it. ... and of course. > > it's only if you include the logo on your page, and what would be the > > reason to do that if you wouldn't link to the wpoison page? > > People might have all sorts of reasons. Maybe they'd want to point the > link to a rival, forked wpoison project. Maybe they just don't like > image tags inside href's. The way I conjecture the license writers intentions; you still can point to a rival, forket wpoison project *as long as you don't use the official image*; and if you don't like image links, just don't link to the page at all (in which case, don't use the logo). > > This is a small requirement not much different from the new BSD- > > license's "always include this notice in the source code" > requirement. > > No, it's very different from the "always include this notice in the > source code" requirement. It's more similar to the BSD advertising > clause which was retracted by the University of California. The way I read the BSD-license, people can't just take the code, remove the notice and say "Hey, I wrote this!". It requires credit where credit is due (much like the GPL). I interpret what I suspect is the intended requirements (which, yet again, is not written clearly enough) as "If you use the image on a web page, you must link to the official wpoison page". (Whether software like that should go into main or non-free, I don't know, but I do not see it as a reason to reject it from non-free.) What's written can also be interpreted as "If you use this program, you must display a linked logo on your web page". (Very similar to the zope case; but unlike the zope case it's doesn't break dfsg 3, which zope would've done since it would automatically put the picture there and non- removability of that code would break dfsg 3. [That might've been a misunderstanding from me.]) In this case, I guess main would be out of the question, but how about non-free? For the eight time (or so, I don't keep count), yes; the license has to be restated clearly before a decision can be made. The reason I even entered this discussion was the "hyperlinks in an image"-part which I believed was just a simple mistake on your part. I beg your pardon for any percieved rudeness, I mean no ill vibes. The obnoxious advertising, old BSD-license is listed by the FSF as a free software license; GPL-incompatible but free. I don't know what Bruce has said about it since I haven't had time to read all of the archives from all of the debian lists yet. Sunnanvind (doesn't want to be voted off the island)
