On Sun, 31 May 2015 14:11:43 +0200 Paul Gevers wrote:
[...]
The second license appears to be clearly non-free: it fails to
explicitly grant permission to copy, redistribute, and modify (it just
talks about using, which is a vague term)
Are you sure? Clause 3 says:
3) If you modify and/or distribute the code to any third party then you
must not veil the original author. To me this says that you are allowed
to modify and distribute, just not veil authorship.
That's what I said: it fails to *explicitly* grant permission to copy,
redistribute, and modify; it just *implicitly* says that you allowed
to modify and distribute.
Is even this not enough?
It *may* be considered to be more or less enough, although it lacks some
clarity (which would be much much appreciated, lest we later face some
unexpected contorted interpretation of a non-clear license text...).
Indeed, it doesn't mention copy. This doesn't help the
unfreeness about selling it.
And this is the main reason why I think this second license fails to
meet the DFSG: it forbids anyone to sell aggregate software
distributions containing the file, as I have already said.
I recommend you to get in touch with the copyright owner of this second
file and try to persuade him to re-license the file under DFSG-free
terms, such as, for instance, the Expat license [2].
I will.
Thanks a lot, this is very appreciated.
Bye.
--
http://www.inventati.org/frx/
There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
. Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgpEBs6AA5t5q.pgp
Description: PGP signature
