On Dec 15, 2009, at 10:20 AM, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> Clause c and the fact that the author may have claims to the JUMBO name
> under trademark law means he can certainly require a name change. I
> don't think he can stop you from claiming that you can read and write
> his format, however. A secondary thing here, however, is that you
> generally want to get on with your upstream. If you start doing things
> he doesn't like, then he will make life difficult for you (see: ion3).
Yeah. Since the biggest users of the Jumbo software, and also promotors of that
CML format, distribute a patched version of the software, it's something
they'll have to work out amongst themselves. I think it won't stay for all that
long. Either that or I'll be an annoying bastard and harp on it in emails. ;)
The feedback here has helped. The CML maintainers are going to split off the
CC-BY-ND into another file which can go into non-free, the rest of the JUMBO
code will clarified to be "Apache 2.0", the CML developers are going through
all their code to check that there are no other outstanding licensing details
like that.
There's the minor point outstanding of it Apache 2.0's relicense clause allows
LGPL, but the only time that will come into play is if as of yet non-existent
downstream providers package the software and distribute the derived system
with a license fee. My judgement is that that is unlikely, what CML has done is
enough, that the result is free (since it can all go to GPL), and therefore
these changes fit into Debian's policy.
Cheers!
Andrew
[email protected]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
