On Tue, 2014-07-29 at 18:24 +0200, André Hoffmann wrote: > On 29 Jul 2014, at 18:04, Yaroslav Halchenko <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > well -- actually third alternative could be you just take those > > copies of > > fslio.{c,h} from FSL and ship/build them along. Very suboptimal, > > some Debian > > people might get concerned, but IMHO nothing in Debian policy > > forbids it. You > > could even start this way and later on we will figure out the > > 'ideal' way (e.g. > > #2 from above) > > Great! If there are no objections from anyone else, I’d certainly > prefer to follow this path.
Well, the real objections would come from FTP-master and debian-legal. The discussion I pointed out here https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/09/msg00026.html mainly is about that the phrase "release into the public domain" might have an unexpected legal meaning, since the copyright holders reside in the UK, and there this phrase might have a different meaning. > What license would I be able to choose in this scenario? The MIT > license as Yury V. Zaytsev suggested? You might want to check out this page to help your decision: http://choosealicense.com/ Best Gert
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Neurodebian-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/neurodebian-devel
