Re: Freeware Public License (FPL)

2016-11-04 Thread Roberto
On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 07:21:34PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: > Hi, > rather than commenting on the several misconceptions and plain false > statements included in the upstream author's answer, I will just > recommend you to reply him something similar to the following: That's an excellent

Re: Freeware Public License (FPL)

2016-11-04 Thread Francesco Poli
On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 13:25:17 +0100 Jörg Frings-Fürst wrote: [...] > I have ask the upstream author Paul E. Jones . > Here are the answer: [...] Hi, rather than commenting on the several misconceptions and plain false statements included in the upstream author's answer, I

Re: Freeware Public License (FPL)

2016-11-04 Thread Jörg Frings-Fürst
Hello, first thanks for your answers. The files we talk about are utils/sha1.cc and utils/sha1.h from[1]. I have ask the upstream author Paul E. Jones . Here are the answer: [quote] Jörg, Sad that one would read into this more than is written.  Because it doesn't say

Re: Freeware Public License (FPL)

2016-10-29 Thread Ben Finney
Charles Plessy writes: > Le Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:21:37AM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : > > Ian Jackson writes: > > > > > I'm afraid you'll have to go back to the authors/copyrightholders > > > and get them to fix the licence for this

Re: Freeware Public License (FPL)

2016-10-29 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 11:21:37AM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : > Ian Jackson writes: > > > I'm afraid you'll have to go back to the authors/copyrightholders and > > get them to fix the licence for this particular program. > > Preferably, convince the copyright

Re: Freeware Public License (FPL)

2016-10-29 Thread Ben Finney
Ian Jackson writes: > I'm afraid you'll have to go back to the authors/copyrightholders and > get them to fix the licence for this particular program. Preferably, convince the copyright holders that the reliable option is an existing, well-understood, known

Re: Freeware Public License (FPL)

2016-10-29 Thread Ian Jackson
Jörg Frings-Fürst writes ("Freeware Public License (FPL)"): > a short question: is this license DFSG compatible? Sadly there isn't permission to modify. I think this is probably unintentional. I'm afraid you'll have to go back to the authors/copyrightholders and get them to fi

Re: Freeware Public License (FPL)

2016-10-29 Thread Eriberto Mota
2016-10-29 18:11 GMT-02:00 Ben Finney : > > Because no other DFSG freedoms are granted, those remain reserved to the > copyright holders. > > So a work under this license would be non-free. I agree. I can't see rights for modify the source code. This and other rights must be

Re: Freeware Public License (FPL)

2016-10-29 Thread Ben Finney
Jörg Frings-Fürst <deb...@jff-webhosting.net> writes: > a short question: is this license DFSG compatible? The DFSG does not apply to licen texts in isolation. It applies to works for distribution in Debian. A particular license is only one aspect of the work to consider. > Fre

Freeware Public License (FPL)

2016-10-29 Thread Jörg Frings-Fürst
Hello, a short question: is this license DFSG compatible? Many thanks CU Jörg [quote] Copyright (C) 1998, 2009 Paul E. Jones <pau...@packetizer.com> Freeware Public License (FPL) This software is licensed as "freeware."  Permission to distribute this software in source