David Coe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is this (in its current form) DFSG compliant? (I believe it is.) If > not, what changes should we request?
I believe it is DFSG compliant now. > Do we want to suggest changes to make this GPL-compatible *now* rather > than waiting for the ZPL to get there? Maybe Thingamy can lead by > example (I don't speak for them). Only one change is necessary to make it GPL-compatible: the noxious advertising clause needs to be removed. (It only applies to distributions that don't contain a complete "intact" Thingamy distribution, but that's a conflict with the GPL as regards modified, non-patch-distributed versions.) Alternative to removing it, it could be changed into a request. Whether we want to suggest such changes is not something anyone could say without knowing the Thingamy authors and their likely sentiments. > 3. All advertising materials and documentation mentioning > features derived from or use of this software must display > the following acknowledgement: > > "This product includes software developed by Thingamy Ltd > (http://www.thingamy.com/)." > > In the event that the product being advertised includes an > intact Thingamy distribution (with copyright and license included) > then this clause is waived. The requirement that modified versions be distributed only as patches does not actually make it GPL incompatible, because you don't need to comply with that requirement if you change the name of the product, by either clear labelling as unofficial, or just stop saying "Thingamy" on the distribution. Thomas
