2007/9/14, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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. > Only if we distribute it on the CD, which is *very* unlikely.
> > 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." That's a nice contradiction. I think a clarification from the author of Ion is required. > 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. > Valid point, but I do not know how a Recipe should be considered in form of distribution as wwe still do not have a package. -- /Jonas _______________________________________________ gobolinux-devel mailing list gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
