Re: ISDA CDS Standard Model Public Licence v0.1

2010-02-14 Thread Walter Landry
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: (b) For Source Code and executable versions of any Derivative Works that You create for external use to your organization, the following notice must be provided at the top level (e.g. main screen of an application) This application is based on the

Re: ISDA CDS Standard Model Public Licence v0.1

2010-02-14 Thread Francesco Poli
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 16:53:39 +1100 Ben Finney wrote: Guillaume Yziquel guillaume.yziq...@citycable.ch writes: I've noticed a software with a custom licence. Which software work is that? Seems to roughly adhere to DFSG (section 4 and 6 may not...):

Re: Difference between license in files and in COPYING file

2010-02-14 Thread Joachim Wiedorn
Hello, Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au wrote: No, it violates DFSG §3. If the package violates DFSG, so it should be moved to non-free archive. Because the package d4x does not have an maintainer (it is orphaned again) Who can do this? Should it do the QA group? Or can it be an NMU? I

Re: Difference between license in files and in COPYING file

2010-02-14 Thread Joachim Wiedorn
Hello, Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.b...@gmail.com wrote: ie; Not even a Debian Maintainer can modify the software to package it. So this software looks like a non-starter for inclusion in Debian, even in non-free. So what is the right way? Who can / must decide this? If non-free is not

Re: Difference between license in files and in COPYING file

2010-02-14 Thread Charles Plessy
Le Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:18:57PM +0100, Joachim Wiedorn a écrit : /*WebDownloader for X-Window * *Copyright (C) 1999-2002 Koshelev Maxim *This Program is free but not GPL!!! You can't modify it *without agreement with author. You can't distribute modified *