On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Simon Josefsson wrote:
Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
1.1 Software License
Permission is granted for all uses, commercial and non-commercial, of
the sample code found in Section 8. Royalty free license to use,
copy, modify and distribute the software found in Section 8 is
granted, provided that this document is identified in all material
mentioning or referencing this software, and provided that
redistributed derivative works do not contain misleading author or
version information.
The authors make no representations concerning either the
merchantability of this software or the suitability of this software
for any particular purpose. It is provided "as is" without express or
implied warranty of any kind.
Do you see any loopholes in this that make it non-DFSG-free?
A couple that I see. They are likely "just" loopholes that the copyright
holder does not intend, but I'd love to see fixed.
1) "identified in all material mentioning or referencing this software".
Clearly this is outside the control of the licensee - some third party
could mention or reference this software, causing you to violate the
license.
2) "do not contain misleading author or version information". This is a
very wide net, and if such information is part of the api (so the license
disallows spoofing), is non-free. This gets us into the weird situation
where the work itself is free, but there are some modifications that are
allowed by the license but would be non-free due to tripping a license
provision. Aside from that, "misleading" is a vague term, which will be
interpreted differently every time the question is asked. Also, what
about pseudonymous modifications?
--
Mark Rafn [EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.dagon.net/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]