Re: BSDish licenses without explicit modification permission

On Sat, Jul 6, 2019 at 1:55 AM Paul Wise wrote: > Does anyone have any thoughts about this? I talked to one of RedHat's lawyers and they mentioned that they have dealt with this problem too and concluded that these licenses were intended to cover modification. The current wording of the initial p

Re: Is this BSD-3-Clause Variant DFSG-compliant?

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 4:34 PM Eriberto Mota wrote: > For me it is not DFSG-compatible because I can't see a clause about > allowing modifications in source code. I brought this up on debian-legal a while ago: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/a8259f8fb4348c790076ffcaf8721ecba7c714a3.ca...@

Re: Is this BSD-3-Clause Variant DFSG-compliant?

* On 5/24/20 6:33 PM, Eriberto Mota wrote: > Today I found the file test/ftp.y, in btyacc package, using the > following license: > > test/ftp.y: * Copyright (c) 1985, 1988 Regents of the University of > California. > test/ftp.y- * All rights reserved. > test/ftp.y- * > test/ftp.y- * Redistributi

Is this BSD-3-Clause Variant DFSG-compliant?

Hi folks, Today I found the file test/ftp.y, in btyacc package, using the following license: test/ftp.y: * Copyright (c) 1985, 1988 Regents of the University of California. test/ftp.y- * All rights reserved. test/ftp.y- * test/ftp.y- * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitt