On Fri, 27 Jun 2003, Luca - De Whiskey's - De Vitis wrote: > On Fri, Jun 27, 2003 at 12:32:59AM +0100, Millis Miller wrote: > > * License : Custom > > Its license is non-free, not "Custom": > > * Copyright (C) 2001 email by Dean Jones > * > * This source and program come as is, WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY and/or > * WITHOUT ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY. > * > * Users of said software should realize that they cannot and will not > * Hold Cleancode.org reliable or responsible for any purpose WHAT SO EVER. > * Please read all documentation and use said software responsibly. > * > * ANY COMMERCIAL REDISTRIBUTION OR ANY PROPRIETARY REDISTRIBUTION OF THIS > * OR ANY SOURCE FROM CLEANCODE.ORG IS PROHIBITED UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS > AND > * SHALL NOT BE RE-SOLD OR REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PRIOR AGREEMENTS WITH > * CLEANCODE.ORG > * > * I can be reached by electronic mail if there are any questions or concerns > * about this or any other software that was written/distributed by > * Cleancode.org > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] > * > * Software supplied and written by http://www.cleancode.org > > I'm not sure (i'm not good with legalese), but i suppose that you (we) shold > ask cleancode.org the agreement about redistribution of 'email' to > cleancode.org: i'm Cc-ing -legal to get some advise.
For what it's worth, I believe this licence is *waaaaay* non-free. It doesn't allow redistribution at all, it doesn't allow modification, it discriminates against fields of endeavour (commercial interests), and if we asked for a "prior agreement" we'd get around most of the above issues but it would specific to Debian. I also have issues with the definition of "commercial redistribution or proprietary redistribution" - I get the feeling that would be a hairy one to argue in court (proprietary, especially). Also, unless http://www.cleancode.org is a legally registered entity, how can it have supplied and written the software in question? Sounds like an assertion of copyright to me, but I don't think a simple website can hold copyright (unless it's a registered legal entity, of course). So, we've violated DFSG 1, 2, 3, 5/6, and 8. Not bad for one licence which someone thought was DFSG free. I'd recommend going to upstream, showing them the DFSG, and asking if they'd mind relicencing it in some half-ways decent (or at least, unambiguous) manner, preferably a standard licence that fits their needs (it's not as though there aren't enough of them to choose from), and clarify the ownership of the code. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- #include <disclaimer.h> Matthew Palmer, Geek In Residence http://ieee.uow.edu.au/~mjp16
