On Thu, 11 May 2006 16:14:06 -0400 Joe Smith wrote: > > "Fred Maranhão" wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] > >The page of license is: > >http://webtest.canoo.com/webtest/manual/license.html. It seems open > >source, in my humble opinion, but I'm not a license specialist.
See below... > >And > >there are a lot of new licenses (not necessarily DFSG-compliant) with > >'free' and 'open' in their names, nowadays. Sad but true. > > > >Can anyone emit a second opinion? > > I've included a complete copy of the licence at the end of this mail. Thanks. > > This is basically the apachee 1.1 licence, with the name Apache > replaced, as obviously that would not apply. > Other differences include removal of nonbinding information from after > the warrenty disclamer, and removal of the numbers on the clauses. > > Now the major potential problem is: > #Products derived from this software may not be called "WebTest", nor > #may "Canoo" appear in > #their name, without prior written permission of the Canoo Engineering > #AG. > > The restriction on "WebTest" is explicitly allowed by the DFSG. There > appars to be some debate > as to whether the other restrictions are acceptable under the DFSG. The last thread on this topic starts here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/msg00136.html and my opinion is (re)stated here: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/04/msg00181.html > > I suspect that it may not be a broblem in this case, as the > anti-endorsment clause > presumably would prevent already prevent including "Cantoo" in the > package name. In don't think so. A name that includes "Cantoo" as a substring does not necessary qualify as claiming endorsement by Cantoo... -- :-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-) ...................................................................... Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpJoErMvNmhg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
