Vagrant Cascadian <vagr...@debian.org> writes:
On 2021-04-25, Jack Hill wrote:
I'm working on packaging the Argyll Color Management System for
Guix. To
build, it uses the Jam tool, which has the following license:
```
This is Release 2.5 of Jam, a make-like program.
License is hereby granted to use this software and distribute
it
freely, as long as this copyright notice is retained and
modifications
are clearly marked.
ALL WARRANTIES ARE HEREBY DISCLAIMED.
```
Permission to use, check.
Permission to study, probably(?)
Permission to share, check.
Permission to modify, .... ?
Is it even free software? There is no mention of modification
which
doesn't appear to be free by my layman's reading...
Which brings up an ugly bag of worms regarding boost...
The jam build system in boost is also licensed under the Boost
license:
The build system source is under tools/build/src/engine/, and the
jam.cpp file has these notes:
--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
/*
* /+\
* +\ Copyright 1993-2002 Christopher Seiwald and Perforce
Software, Inc.
* \+/
*
* This file is part of jam.
*
* License is hereby granted to use this software and distribute
it freely, as
* long as this copyright notice is retained and modifications are
clearly
* marked.
*
* ALL WARRANTIES ARE HEREBY DISCLAIMED.
*/
/* This file is ALSO:
* Copyright 2001-2004 David Abrahams.
* Copyright 2018 Rene Rivera
* Distributed under the Boost Software License, Version 1.0.
* (See accompanying file LICENSE_1_0.txt or copy at
* http://www.boost.org/LICENSE_1_0.txt)
*/
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---
FWIW I consider the Jam license to be free; it does mention
modifications and only asks that they are “clearly marked”
(whatever that means). It’s much saner than the LaTeX license
that asks that any modified file be renamed; it is only acceptable
to the FSF license team because TeX has an aliasing mechanism, so
it’s not a practical obstacle, merely a serious annoyance.
--
Ricardo
