FYI, upstream agreed to change the pseudo public domain license into an MIT one (expat):
http://math.hws.edu/javamath/ Thanks everyone for comments/suggestions. On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Francesco Poli <invernom...@paranoici.org> wrote: > On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 15:10:26 -0700 Steve Langasek wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 12:01:45AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > [...] >> > That's not my understanding of the issue under consideration: more >> > details are included in my own analysis [1]. >> >> Yes, because as usual your analysis is way out in left field. > > I really cannot understand the reason for all this hatred. > Did I do any nasty things to you in the past? > Are you unable to have a discussion without indulging in ad hominem > attacks? > >> >> > My impression is that clause 2 introduces odd restrictions on how >> > modified versions are packaged >> >> "package" is synonymous with "name" in this case. DFSG#4 says free works >> may require a name change when modified. > > As Walter Landry pointed out [2], these packaging restrictions > interfere with the ability to create drop-in replacements and with the > freedom to translate the work into other programming languages. > These restrictions seem to go beyond what is allowed by DFSG#4. > > [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2012/04/msg00017.html > >> >> > and insists that modifications be documented in comments (which, depending >> > on how it is interpreted, may be a very strong restriction). >> >> You mean like this restriction? >> >> a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices >> stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. > > No, I mean like the restriction actually included in the clause under > discussion: "the modifications are documented in comments". > > This restriction looks definitely different from the one you quoted > from the GNU GPL v2. > > The GPL just requires me to write notices where I state that I > changed the files and the date of any change. > > On the other hand, the restriction under discussion requires me to > document the modifications in comments. As noted by Walter Landry [2], > this forces the use of comments, which may be syntactically > unavailable in some cases. > Moreover, this restriction is a bit vague, and could be even > interpreted as requiring that the reasoning behind each modification is > explained and discussed thoroughly in comments. This would be a very > good documenting practice, but mandating it through licensing terms > looks fairly overreaching (at least to me). > >> >> You know, the one in the GPLv2? >> >> Your claims that this may be non-free are absurd. > > I don't think so, since, as explained above, the restriction under > consideration is different from the one found in the GNU GPL v2. > > > -- > http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt > New GnuPG key, see the transition document! > ..................................................... Francesco Poli . > GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE -- 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/CA+7wUsxi9fge1Uszx¼r6qsvkmcabsaedruzzgqjnhtygn...@mail.gmail.com