Hi Don & Charles, On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 09:32:39AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > first of all let me just clarify that DEP-5 is only a proposal now, and that > it > can be subjected to many changes before it is accepted.
Ah - in that case, would you recommend using this format now, accepting that I may have to change it later, or hold off and not use it at all until it's more stable? In a package where the copyright and license was clearer (assuming such a mythical thing exists), I might not have considered using it, but in Dwoo there's at least modified BSD and LGPL (actually I didn't consider whether mixing these was a problem, I hope it's not!), and different authors/copyright holders of different plugins, so it seemed to make sense. > Whichever solution is adopted in DEP-5 to underline that license A is derived > from license B, unless your program is part of the BSD distribution and is > copyright by the regents of the university of California, you can not use > the copy in /usr/share/common-license and have to include it verbatim. > Luckily, > it is short :) Yep, I already did that, no problems there. I wonder if http://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/ might be more clearer about this. I would submit a patch, but as has been made clear, I am no license expert ;) Thank you both for your replies. Cheers, Penny -- /* --------------------------------------------------- Penny Leach | http://mjollnir.org | http://she.geek.nz GPG: 8347 00FC B5BF 6CC0 0FC9 AB90 1875 120A A30E C22B --------------------------------------------------- */
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
