David Starner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 10:21:45PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote: >> I was about to ITP icoutils (http://www.student.lu.se/~nbi98oli/src/), >> but I had a last-minute worry about the licence. It's mostly GPL, except >> that some files in the source are distributed under the Wine licence. >> Most of this seems to be OK (largely BSDish with no advertising clause), >> but I'm concerned about section (3) of the first paragraph. > >I don't think it's an issue. I read (3) as being the same as THE LEGAL >DISCLAMER IN ALL LICENSES THAT'S PRINTED LIKE THIS. I'm sort of worried >about the second paragraph, but it should be acceptable.
OK. I couldn't remember if there was a standard interpretation of this (I was thinking about an argument on this list back in July about a similar clause, and about the meaning of "indemnify"). What worries you about the second paragraph? Is it the requirement to display a notice about all changes? >> The current version of Wine in Debian carries the X11 licence, so if >> this turned out to be a problem then perhaps I could just create a new >> source package with those newer include files instead (or, better, talk >> to the upstream author about it). > >This would probably be the best idea, especially if the files could be >replaced with a dependency on libwine-dev. icoutils actually only uses the API definitions from those include files; it doesn't link against libwine or use any real Wine code itself. In those circumstances, I'd sort of agree that it's better to decouple the build from libwine-dev and avoid having to needlessly follow Wine development. The upstream author actually mailed me about this before I'd had time to ask him if it was a problem, so it should be possible to sort out any problems that do exist quite quickly. Thanks, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
