Alexander Block wrote:
MJ Ray wrote:
There's no clear permission to distribute in any way, so it's not
great. I believe we're unlikely to get sued for it, but it would be
better if Matt Johnston had used a widely-known licence instead of
that. Best course of action is to request relicensing.
[snip]
thanks for the response. I asked Matt about changing the copyright
notice and he changed it to the following:
# (c) 2004 Matt Johnston <matt @ ucc asn au>
# This code may be freely used, distributed, relicensed, and modified for
any
# purpose.
Does that sound ok for Debian?
It is still not a great license, but the reference to distributing helps,
and I belive the word relicense implicitly grants rights to create
derivitives, (since there are no restirctions placed on the new license the
new license can allow derivitives.)
If the version distributed is modified, you should extend the notice to
declare what license you choose to relicense it under. The Expat license is
a good choice.
IANAL, IANADD.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
