Re: srfi licensing
Michael Sperber <sperber-jNDFPZUTrfQQDnmTUQnR1uqEdJ8o/[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.lisp.scheme.plt.schematics |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
>>>>> "MJ" == MJ Ray <[email protected]> writes: MJ> Did the lawyers look for "this is crystal clear" or "I would be able MJ> to argue that in court"? Both. I actually find the license clear enough. MJ> Did you have lawyers from both case and code MJ> law regions? I don't know. MJ> If someone posts their replies (with permission) to debian-legal, MJ> it would probably help inform the discussion. I'll try to dredge it up when I have time; but I'm really getting tired of spending effort on these morons. MJ> Is there really any reason for the limit on allowed purposes for MJ> modification? The aim of given in the FAQ is better achieved through MJ> other means that I mentioned. If this is off-topic here, please help MJ> me to move it somewhere better. Yes; the purpose is to prevent people from saying that a modified version is indeed the original. >> (I'm suprised they think 13 and 14 are OK---they weren't OK with >> scsh.) MJ> Who do you mean by "they"? This preliminary analysis is my work, MJ> considering only the schematics files so far, not anyone else's work MJ> or on any other files. The copies of 13 and 14 both came from GNU/MIT MJ> Scheme (13 via scsh), so I assumed they were clean. Do you know a MJ> problem with them? Yeah, they're (as is) covered by the MIT license, which isn't free according to Debian. However, Chris Hanson made the code available under a BSD license recently---but that was in a private email to us, so the Debian folks probably don't know this yet. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn