IBM Public license compatibility
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I'm currently looking into packaging a module for OpenDx. OpenDx is distributed under the IBM public license 1.0. The addon module for OpenDx currently doesn't have any specific license terms associated with it, however I've talked to the upstream author who said: b) If you could clarify what license terms it is distributed under? I've never thought about the license. I'd like GPL version 2, but I'm not sure if an external module with this license can be dynamically linked with OpenDx, that has, if I remember correctly, a GPL-incompatible license. What do you think? Anyway, I'm pretty sure it's not compatible with GPL, so does anyone have any suggestions for a similar suitable alternative that would be compatible with the IBM public license? Thanks, Alan -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFIBx4X1FNW1LDdr0IRAracAJ9zAtu4uOcG76kpV3OvcTjtmJMScwCgk0ny 4nInwH4Xcd69mCN5pG7wtpo= =N8UV -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Choosing a license for stumbleupon
I filed an ITP recently for stumbleupon, and have been talking with the upstream author about a suitable license for the mozilla toolbar. Im not an expert on legal or license related issues, so I'm posting here for some advice/suggestions. Basicaly this is what the upstream author said: Geoff Smith wrote: funnily enough, I haven't chosen a license yet. I guess now would be a good time ;-) Is there still an issue with MPL? I wouldn't mind using it, but I seem to remember some issues with DFSG and MPL a while back. Have those been resolved? Do you have any opinions on what a good license would be? My only concerns with the license is that being able to add proprietary extensions to stumbleupon would be nice (for people, possibly including me, who in the future want to add something to StumbleUpon that is closed-source) I seem to remember this is a benefit of MPL. On the other hand, I would also like to stop people from using the directly in proprietary software (which I remember being a disadvantage of BSD, and maybe MPL???) Thanks, Alan
Licensing of shareware quake data
Im looking into packaging quake 1 for debian at the moment, and I noticed the follwing clause in the license which I think might mean Im permitted to include the whole compressed zip file inside a package instead of having to get the user to download it in and postinst script (like the nvidia drivers do I think) 6. Permitted Distribution. So long as this Agreement accompanies the Software at all times, ID grants to Providers the limited right to distribute, free of charge, except normal access fees, and by electronic means only, the Software; provided, however, the Software must be so electronically distributed only in a compressed format. The term Providers, as used in the foregoing sentence, shall mean persons whose business it is to provide services on the Internet, on commercial online networks, or on the BBS. Anyone who receives the Software from a Provider shall be limited to all the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Further, ID grants to you, the end-user, the limited right to distribute, free of charge only, the Software as a whole. I don't think the Debian fits the term provider (although Im sure you could argue that since Debian is hosted on providers servers it might just about be ok). Does the bit at the end about limited right to distribute free of charge mean that including the whole zip file in a package is oK? Clearly the shareware data counts as non-free, and I could just make a package to download it, but I thought I should seek advice here first. Thanks, Alan
