Re: Grammarsoft Public Licence 1.0

2008-03-05 Thread Joe Smith
"Francesco Poli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 22:07:40 -0500 Joe Smith wrote: [...] Well it is no less free than the MPL. IMO, the MPL does *not* meet the DFSG. That is exactly why I phrased it as "no less free than". Nothing was added that

Re: Grammarsoft Public Licence 1.0

2008-03-03 Thread Francesco Poli
On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 22:07:40 -0500 Joe Smith wrote: [...] > Well it is no less free than the MPL. IMO, the MPL does *not* meet the DFSG. Some other debian-legal contributors share this opinion: http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/06/msg00221.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/03

Re: Grammarsoft Public Licence 1.0

2008-03-02 Thread Francis Tyers
On Sun, 2008-03-02 at 22:07 -0500, Joe Smith wrote: > "Francis Tyers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Hello there, > > > > I'd like to package piece of software for Debian called VISL CG > > (Constraint Grammar). > > > > The licence file (see Appendix A.) is a bi

Re: Grammarsoft Public Licence 1.0

2008-03-02 Thread Joe Smith
"Francis Tyers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello there, I'd like to package piece of software for Debian called VISL CG (Constraint Grammar). The licence file (see Appendix A.) is a bit strange, and although it states it is derived from the MPL, I'd like to ge

Grammarsoft Public Licence 1.0

2008-03-02 Thread Francis Tyers
Hello there, I'd like to package piece of software for Debian called VISL CG (Constraint Grammar). The licence file (see Appendix A.) is a bit strange, and although it states it is derived from the MPL, I'd like to get an opinion as to if it is a free-software licence or not (as defined by the DF