On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, MJ Ray wrote: > On 2004-02-22 16:43:36 +0000 Willi Mann V. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Such redistributions must allow further use, modification, and > > redistribution of the Source Code under substantially the same > > terms as this license. > > I think this is DFSG-free, but there's a lawyerbomb for combining > with other licences (what is "substantially"?).
Yeah, this is yet another example of how not to write a license, or at least how to stick a (possibly) gaping chasm into your license. > > IN NO EVENT SHALL SENDMAIL, INC., THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF > > Odd: P.L.Daniels not listed as cannot be held liable and where did > "Sendmail, Inc" come in? Yet another example of why copying and pasting licenses may be hazardous to your health. I personally agree that the license may be DFSG Free, but a few of the clauses of this license definetly give me pause. Someone should suggest that upstream use an already accepted DFSG Free copyleft license instead of rolling his|her own. [Or at the very least, work with a lawyer experienced in the writing of such licenses.] Don Armstrong -- She was alot like starbucks. IE, generic and expensive. -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/batch3.htm http://www.donarmstrong.com http://www.anylevel.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
