Hello Atsuhito, On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 12:31:50PM +0900, Atsuhito Kohda wrote: > On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 19:19:45 +0200, Helge Kreutzmann wrote: > > On April 10th 2008 you said you were going to ask debian-legal about > > this issue so I asked if your rewrite was prompted by that discussion. > > Oops, I forgot it and I just asked debian-legal about the issue. > More precisely, I didn't understand the issue precise enough > to ask debian-legal about it in the past. > And my rewrite is only following an update of Wolfram web page.
Ok and no problem.
> > From my viewpoint, however, the new version is not problematic in this
> > regard simply because the license itself is contained in the template
> > anymore (though I do at present not fully understand how the user
> > knows about the content of the license).
>
> I'm afraid you misunderstand here. The license itself is
> contained in a new package also. It is not in a part to be
> translated. So the problem (if any) is there in a new package
> and/but the content of the license is displayed to a user definitely.
I think we wait if debian-legal has to say something and else close
the issue. I'm not a lawyer, and if the license is shown verbatim it
should be clear to the user that it might not be compatible with her
jurisdiction (and thus maybe invalid).
Greetings
Helge
--
Dr. Helge Kreutzmann [email protected]
Dipl.-Phys. http://www.helgefjell.de/debian.php
64bit GNU powered gpg signed mail preferred
Help keep free software "libre": http://www.ffii.de/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
