Re: Ask about the license "permissive"
On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 at 01:33:04 +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: [I wrote] > > Permissive licenses typically need to be quoted in full in the Debian > > copyright file. > > Any licence regardless of its conditions (permissive, copyleft or even > nonfree), except the following ones, should be quoted in full, is not it? > > ,[ $ ls /usr/share/common-licenses/ ] > | Apache-2.0 BSD GFDL-1.2 GPLGPL-2 LGPLLGPL-2.1 > | ArtisticGFDL GFDL-1.3 GPL-1 GPL-3 LGPL-2 LGPL-3 > ` Correct. The original BSD license is one example of a permissive license. S
Re: Ask about the license "permissive"
> On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 at 20:50:10 +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: >> > There is "permissive" used as name. Is this the correct name of the >> > license? >> >> It look like a simplified variation on so called ‘Historical >> Permission Notice and Disclamer’ [0][1]. It is indeed a lax permissive >> licence, so I see no problem. > > To be clear, there is probably no canonical name for this license. It > is one of many permissive licenses, rather than being "the Permissive > License". > > Permissive licenses typically need to be quoted in full in the Debian > copyright file. Any licence regardless of its conditions (permissive, copyleft or even nonfree), except the following ones, should be quoted in full, is not it? ,[ $ ls /usr/share/common-licenses/ ] | Apache-2.0 BSD GFDL-1.2 GPLGPL-2 LGPLLGPL-2.1 | ArtisticGFDL GFDL-1.3 GPL-1 GPL-3 LGPL-2 LGPL-3 `
Re: Ask about the license "permissive"
On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 at 20:50:10 +0300, Dmitry Alexandrov wrote: > > There is "permissive" used as name. Is this the correct name of the > > license? > > It look like a simplified variation on so called ‘Historical > Permission Notice and Disclamer’ [0][1]. It is indeed a lax permissive > licence, so I see no problem. To be clear, there is probably no canonical name for this license. It is one of many permissive licenses, rather than being "the Permissive License". Permissive licenses typically need to be quoted in full in the Debian copyright file. If you are using machine-readable copyright file syntax, the names used for permissive licenses are essentially arbitrary, as long as they do not collide with a predefined license name. If only one permissive license is used, it's often listed as "License: permissive". If multiple permissive licenses are used or there is some other reason to disambiguate, I usually use something like "License: alexandrov-permissive" or "License: foobar-permissive", with the name of the author, copyright holder or module added. S
Re: Ask about the license "permissive"
Hello Dmitry, many thanks for your answer. Am Freitag, den 30.12.2016, 20:46 +0300 schrieb Dmitry Alexandrov: > > Hello, > > > > I want to adopt the package xtrkcad and I have a question about the > > license of app/tools/dirent.*. > > > > The license text is > > [quote] > > Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its > > documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided > > that this copyright and permissions notice appear in all copies and > > derivatives. > > . > > This software is supplied "as is" without express or implied warranty. > > [/quote] > > > > I found the same text at[1]. > > > > There is "permissive" used as name. Is this the correct name of the > > license? > > > > Many thanks! > > > > > > CU > > Jörg > > > > [1] https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/a/atanks/copyright-6.5~dfsg-2 > > It looks like a simplified variation on so called ‘Historical Permission > Notice and Disclaimer’ [0][1]. It is indeed a lax permissive licence, so I > see no problem. > Good :-) Thanks for your comment! > [0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#HPND > [1] > https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Historical_Permission_Notice_and_Disclaimer > CU Jörg -- New: GPG Fingerprint: 63E0 075F C8D4 3ABB 35AB 30EE 09F8 9F3C 8CA1 D25D GPG key (long) : 09F89F3C8CA1D25D GPG Key: 8CA1D25D CAcert Key S/N : 0E:D4:56 Old pgp Key: BE581B6E (revoked since 2014-12-31). Jörg Frings-Fürst D-54470 Lieser Threema: SYR8SJXB IRC: j_...@freenode.net j_...@oftc.net My wish list: - Please send me a picture from the nature at your home. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Ask about the license "permissive"
> Hello, > > I want to adopt the package xtrkcad and I have a question about the > license of app/tools/dirent.*. > > The license text is > [quote] > Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its > documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided > that this copyright and permissions notice appear in all copies and > derivatives. > . > This software is supplied "as is" without express or implied warranty. > [/quote] > > I found the same text at[1]. > > There is "permissive" used as name. Is this the correct name of the > license? > > Many thanks! > > > CU > Jörg > > [1] https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/a/atanks/copyright-6.5~dfsg-2 It look like a simplified variation on so called ‘Historical Permission Notice and Disclamer’ [0][1]. It is indeed a lax permissive licence, so I see no problem. [0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#HPND [1] https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Historical_Permission_Notice_and_Disclaimer
Re: Ask about the license "permissive"
> Hello, > > I want to adopt the package xtrkcad and I have a question about the > license of app/tools/dirent.*. > > The license text is > [quote] > Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its > documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided > that this copyright and permissions notice appear in all copies and > derivatives. > . > This software is supplied "as is" without express or implied warranty. > [/quote] > > I found the same text at[1]. > > There is "permissive" used as name. Is this the correct name of the > license? > > Many thanks! > > > CU > Jörg > > [1] https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/a/atanks/copyright-6.5~dfsg-2 It looks like a simplified variation on so called ‘Historical Permission Notice and Disclaimer’ [0][1]. It is indeed a lax permissive licence, so I see no problem. [0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#HPND [1] https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Historical_Permission_Notice_and_Disclaimer
Ask about the license "permissive"
Hello, I want to adopt the package xtrkcad and I have a question about the license of app/tools/dirent.*. The license text is [quote] Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided that this copyright and permissions notice appear in all copies and derivatives. . This software is supplied "as is" without express or implied warranty. [/quote] I found the same text at[1]. There is "permissive" used as name. Is this the correct name of the license? Many thanks! CU Jörg [1] https://tracker.debian.org/media/packages/a/atanks/copyright-6.5~dfsg-2 -- New: GPG Fingerprint: 63E0 075F C8D4 3ABB 35AB 30EE 09F8 9F3C 8CA1 D25D GPG key (long) : 09F89F3C8CA1D25D GPG Key: 8CA1D25D CAcert Key S/N : 0E:D4:56 Old pgp Key: BE581B6E (revoked since 2014-12-31). Jörg Frings-Fürst D-54470 Lieser Threema: SYR8SJXB IRC: j_...@freenode.net j_...@oftc.net My wish list: - Please send me a picture from the nature at your home. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
