On Mon, Sep 01, 2003 at 03:53:18AM +1200, Adam Warner wrote: > I believe Andrew's suggestion that we should consider software under > this licence on a case by case basis is not appropriate. The Debian > project expects to have the same rights to distribute modified software > as the original software.
Well, offhand I have one brightline test in mind that we can apply here: If the copyright holder doesn't hold any patents covering the work, there's no problem. In this case, all the patent-related clauses are a no-op. When there actually _are_ patents involved... that's tricky. I'm not sure about that yet. Given the language style in which this license is written, I'm fairly sure it's a generic one emitted by a legal deparment who was given instructions not to jeopardise potential patent claims. As such, it's entirely possible that they might intend to create some DFSG-free things with it - but it's also likely they intend to create some things which aren't. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
pgp0liAxzqiKQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
