Francesco Poli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wait a second: how can it be DFSG-free, when there's permission to "copy > and use" and to "make and use derivative works", but there's no explicit > permission to distribute the derivative works? > Did I miss something? [...]
You make and use the derivative, then copy and use it. Copying may even be a type of use. It would be neater to have clear derivative distribution permission, but unless we get a nutcase interpretation that says they behave like UW, it's good enough for me. > More bad news: I found out that some identically licensed files are > included in Apache2. [...] Apache2 has fruity NOTICE requirements anyway, doesn't it? Should be enough to satisfy the RSA ones as consequence. > Moreover, Apache2 includes the following code (I'm quoting from the > debian/copyright file): > > For the srclib\apr-util\test\testmd4.c component: [...] > This does not even grant *any* permissions. > Is this distributable at all? Yes. That seems to be a copyright *notice*, not a licence. What licence covers the file? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
