On Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:37:21 +0200 Sam Geeraerts <[email protected]> wrote:
> Benedikt Ahrens schreef: > > > > Hello, > > > > I finally received an answer to my request to the AMS. Their Thanks for taking this on. > > > > I won't be available during the next two weeks. The answer came from Starting when - are you going to see these replies? :) > > (******************************) > > > > Dear Benedikt, > > > > The good news is that as we release new versions of our packages, we > > have been updating the license to the following: > > > > % Unlimited copying and redistribution of this file are > > permitted as % long as this file is not modified. Modifications, > > and distribution % of modified versions, are permitted, but only if > > the resulting file % is renamed. > > > > We considered adopting the LPPL, but decided that the ban against > > distributed modified files under the same name was critical to our > > business interests. This wording, which was suggested by Karl Berry > > to address similar licensing concerns for TeXLive, will be used for > > all future releases. > > "... Modifications, and ..." sounds a bit like a EULA and rather > unnecessary. It probably falls outside copyright law, which makes it > irrelevant. (Either that, or it makes the whole license invalid, > although I doubt that.) As far as I can tell it's a free license. And > Karl Berry is a good reference, I think. If AMS isn't playing Chinese whispers. (see below) > > What we could do, if it would help, is add a 00LICENSE file to the > > current distribution that contains the new license, an explanation > > of the situation, and a statement that this supersedes the one in > > the individual files. I suspect that strictly speaking this is > > legally dicey, but it would certainly make our intentions clear. > > AMS probably own all the code, so I think this is legally sound and > good enough for our purposes. It would be good to check with the FSF > licensing lab, though. I'd agree with this, especially to confirm Karl B. said what AMS claim he said. > If these things are in order, then we need to check if an updated > package can just replace the current one. Meaning: > > 1) Will there be a deb package available (soon)? If its a simple matter of inserting a new copyright file, it could happen a day or two after we get said file. > 2) Will it have different dependencies from the current one? If we need to re-package it yes, if its just a copyright notice, all should be fine. > 3) Will it be so different that it could break building current other > packages (e.g. doxygen, as mentioned in the Debian bug report)? That would be un-fun. > > I hope that this is, if not completely satisfactory, at least > > workable. If you have any further questions or concerns, please let > > me know and I'll do my best to address them. > >> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=477060 > >> [2] http://www.gnewsense.org > >> [3] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=477060#20 > > Thanks for contacting them. If you feel like also informing Debian > about this, I'm sure they'd appreciate it. Definitely. If Benedikt has gone on his break I'll send the info on to Debian and see what -legal thinks (and open new bug(s) if needed). kk -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ gNewSense-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnewsense-dev
