Aitor Pérez Iturri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think we don't add any significant addition, but i can't understand > ver well if we should call our packages Ion or Ion3, I think that we > agree with the intence of the license, but we can ask the autor > directly. > > what do you think about?
I think you're likely to get a rude reply, but ask away if you want. My main worry isn't the significant addition bit, but the termination clause where we seem to have to produce a new CD release within 28 days of his release. You might prefer to ask [EMAIL PROTECTED] whether ion3 is free software (with links to the licence and homepage) because they understand the LGPL 2.1 better than most. > The code of this project is "essentially" licensed under the LGPL, > version 2.1, unless otherwise indicated in components taken from > elsewhere. It is reproduced below. Additionally, the following terms > apply to the use of [...] This seems self-contradictory to me, because LGPL-2.1 says "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." By saying we may not impose any further restrictions *and* requiring us to apply additional terms, the author has not granted us a usable license and so we shouldn't distribute his work at all. Puzzled, -- MJ Ray - see/vidu http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Experienced webmaster-developers for hire http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ Also: statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, workers co-op. Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
