On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 11:17:08PM +0000, Dave Cunningham wrote: > >From my limited correspondance, and from the fact that their > license is apparently flawed, I personally believe they are not > experienced with licenses and legal issues, so it would probably > be a good idea to explain very clearly that which they would > *have* to do before this software can be packaged, perhaps > suggesting alternative wording?
The main problem seems to be that while the sentence itself says "request", it's under a non-request "conditions" heading. Moving the request away from that--preferably out of the license entirely--should be enough. The general rule is that if you're changing the license, you need the permission of all copyright holders (contributors, nontrivial patches). Simple verbal consent is enough: "yes, that's OK" in an email should suffice. > What happened with the issue of audacity including non-free code > anyway? As far as I can tell, it's been ignored. (Perhaps the issue is that the guy who files the bug gets to defend it, and given the apparent tendency recently of some maintainers blowing up seemingly simple licensing issues into useless month-long flamewars, everyone wants somebody else to do it ...) -- Glenn Maynard
