On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:16:28 +1000 Jack Coulter wrote: > I've spoken again to matricks, he's stated that in the next release, > he'll be changing the license slightly, it will still remain free, but > he's going to clarify the last point.
That silly restriction should not be "clarified"! It should be entirely dropped and the plain unmodified zlib license should be adopted! > > Aside from that, is this package suitable for inclusion? Are there any > changes I need to make? As I said, the main license (zlib license + additional silly restriction) already meets the DFSG. However, it meets the DFSG just because the selling restriction may be easily circumvented; that's why I suggest that the restriction is dropped entirely from the license text: for the sake of clarity and simplicity, no useless restrictions should be present in license texts... As far as the rest of the package is concerned, I didn't see any detailed info about the licensing status of the files released under different terms, so I cannot comment any further... Once more, my disclaimers are: IANAL, TINLA, IANADD, TINASOTODP. P.S.: please send replies to both debian-mentors and debian-legal, as appropriate, rather than to me and debian-mentors, or otherwise other debian-legal participants won't see your replies at all... -- http://frx.netsons.org/progs/scripts/refresh-pubring.html New! Version 0.6 available! What? See for yourself! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpQInFhajsD9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
