"MJ Ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I think this is trying to be
a shorter licence with the same effect as
the Artistic - you may edit it, but must change the name. I'd say it
follows the DFSG (integrity of source allows name changes), but I have
one doubt: if it's not changed, we can use any means and conditions,
but that's missing from the modified permission. Does that matter?
Probably not.
I see no mention of changing the apps name. In fact all the way I see this
licence:
1. If unmodified distribute however you want.
2. If modified you may distribute, but you must reference my name and the
URL given.
The one caveat I notice is that no permission to modify the documentation is
given. However,
there does not appear to be a need to include the documentation even if
distributing under #1.
The licence is even less restrictive than X11 or a BSD licence as you do not
need to keep a copy
of the enire licence notice in modified forms, but only a name and URI.
Anyway, if at all unsure, just ask him. Zarf is friendly enough.
In fact his position on the licence, which could probably be considered
binding can be foud here:
http://www.eblong.com/zarf/glk/freeware.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
