Il 14/09/2011 22:48, Cédric Boutillier ha scritto: > The license has two paragraphs, and authorizes distribution in one of > the two following cases: > > *either: you are not allowed to modify and keep the same license and > copyright assignment (that is the clause you mention) > > *or: you can modify, edit, alter, but in that case, provided you do not > mention it comes from the initial file.
Let's quote the important bits here: ======================================================================== Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this documentation file, to create their own derivative works from the content of this document to use, copy, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell the derivative works, and to permit others to do the same, provided that the derived work is not represented as being a copy or version of this document. ======================================================================== The last sentence states you can create your derivative work provided it's a derivative work, and it doesn't have to be a copy of the original work. Beside the fact this is a bad written clause, problem still stands because this file seems a verbatim copy of the original work, thus falling into first paragraph. Is this file really required, or can it be safely removed? If not, I'm not sure how to proceed, perhaps asking upstream to remove license notice would fit the clauses listed in the second paragraph. I'm definitely open to hear to a second opinion, though. -- .''`. : :' : Luca Falavigna <[email protected]> `. `' `-
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers
