On Dec 31, 2007 2:00 AM, Ben Finney wrote: > Sean, please follow the Debian mailing list guidelines > <URL:http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct>
Thanks. Francisco Poli pointed this out too, and I replied to him in the last two paragraphs of this message: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/12/msg00115.html > Copyright law, in my understanding, requires that the > recipient must have explicit license terms, or they have > no license by default. Yes, but I've been told that the expression of explicit license terms can have a very compact expression: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2007Dec/0110 Here, Larry Rosen argues that you can simply refer to any OSI or CC approved license (he didn't mention the FSF explicitly; I wonder if FSF approved licenses can be referred to as well? :-) by name, in a one line statement below the copyright notice. > Instead, a better model would be to think of licenses as > grants of largesse from a monopoly holder, under whatever > terms they choose. Heh, thanks, I like that. The Eiffel Forum License v2 appears to be very close to my requirements, as I recently noted in a previous email in this thread. I would need to delete a single clause to, I think, make it fully compatible with my requirements. Is it DFSG compatible in your opinion? It doesn't seem to be widely used, sadly. -- Sean B. Palmer, http://inamidst.com/sbp/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
