> First, Debian (if I understand correctly) hasn't usually accepted the
> "legal nullification" theory. Currently being a Debian user and not a
> developer, I'm not really qualified to answer as to how they'll accept
> it in this case.
In this case, that's just too bad.
> Second, nothing like the clarification of the license is included in the
> Debian copyright file. Having the clarification included in the
> copyright file would be a great improvement.
We have updated the clarification.
You can find it at http://www.lyx.org/license.html
I hope this will be all you need. I don't know which copyright
file you are talking about, because there is no such file in
the LyX proper. We only have the COPYING license file, where
the clarification IS included (in the cvs version, at least.
Will be in 1.0.0.) along with the GPL v2 license.
This is what is reproduced on the web site.
> Probably a bit out of line here, but have you checked out the LGPL or
> the Artistic License? They would appear to work similarily, but
> unquestionably allow the code to be linked to XForms.
It's difficult for us to change the license, because that requires
us to contact all contributors over the last four years, and get their
consent.
> Has anyone checked out porting LyX to Fltk? It supposed to be somewhat
> compatable with XForms. Checking out the difficulty of that port and
> possibly working on that is on my list of projects to do.
Long term project.
Greets,
Asger Alstrup
