On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 08:59:06PM +0100, Nico Schlömer wrote: > > Both of those licenses sound great and compatable. Provided it's not > > BSD-4. > > It's 3-clause, so we're good.
Great :) > > https://www.debian.org/social_contract > > > > contains the DFSG, our guidelines for free software works that are fit > > for Debian's main archive section. > > I checked all licenses on <http://trilinos.org/?page_id=143> and > besides the BSD-3 clause and the LGPL 2.1, they appear to be either > one of > > * MIT Provided this is MIT/Expat and not MIT/XFree86, which contains the 4th clause of the BSD-4 (so-called "advertising clause", which is GPL incompatable) > * BSD 2-clause > * Apache 2.0 > * GPL3 with Bison exception > * "Public domain" (not a license) These look good. Apache2 is compatable with GPLv3+, but not v2 (due to patent termination and indemnification provisions) These are all free software licenses (except for PD, which should be fine), and the resulting work looks to be freely licensed GPLv3+ > with copyright from various institutions. Can you say anything about > their interoperability and Debian compatibility of those licenses? It appears that this would be a freely licensed work with compatable licenses. I'd need to take a closer look to be sure, but it looks great if that's a full and complete listing of licensing terms. > Cheers, > Nico Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org> | Proud Debian Developer : :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
