Am 13.12.2017 um 19:21 schrieb Jonathan Nieder: > Markus Koschany wrote: > >> License: zlib >> Source: https://opensource.org/licenses/Zlib >> Example packages: >> https://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#The_zlib.2Flibpng_License_.28Zlib.29 > > Hm. The license says > > 3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source distribution. > > And part of 'This notice' is a copyright line that varies from package > to package. Since the license text is very short, it seems simplest > for packages to keep reproducing the license text --- it's not too > painful disk space-wise and it is much clearer license-wise. > > So I don't believe it belongs in common-licenses.
I respectfully disagree. The zlib license is one of the most common
permissive licenses in the world. The license text ("this notice") is
always the same. The only line that differs is the copyright holder but
the name is not part of the license text itself. So writing:
File: foo.bar
Copyright: 2017, John Smith
License: zlib
is exactly the same as saying
The file foo.bar is
Copyright 2017, John Smith
This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages
arising from the use of this software.
Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it
freely, subject to the following restrictions:
1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must
not claim that you wrote the original software. If you use this
software in a product, an acknowledgment in the product
documentation would be appreciated but is not required.
2. Altered source versions must be plainly marked as such, and must
not be misrepresented as being the original software.
3. This notice may not be removed or altered from any source
distribution.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
