Le Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 10:28:05PM +0100, Cédric Boutillier a écrit : > > I am packaging a software containing files with the COPYING file here > attached. They have a double BSD and D&R, but the text below "BSD > License" is in fact that of the MIT/Expat license.
Dear Cédric, since the Expat license is already a renamed MIT license, I think that you can go ahead and call the syck's files license "MIT" or "Expat". If it is for a copyright file in the DEP 5 format, it is preferred to call it "Expat". You can anyway add a comment reminding that the files' author wrongly called the license "BSD", if you would like. If you think that we can not exclude that the author, when writing "BSD", really meant that he wants his software to be licensed under the same terms as a "BSD" license, and not under the terms that he wrote, then maybe the safest would be to help the upstream author who uses these files in unit tests to replace them. That would also have the advantage of getting rid of the D&R, which some (me for instance) may find bad taste. One of the problems of saying "BSD" is that it does not indicate the terms clearly, as for instance the first version of the BSD license had a GPL-incompatible advertisemnt clause… Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20111213231832.gc19...@merveille.plessy.net
