Yes. Their answer makes it clear they do not intend to restrict modification in a way that would make it non free.
~tom On Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 10:46 PM Jerry James <[email protected] wrote: > On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:53 PM Jerry James <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, I did. I'm terribly sorry for the delay. Other events overtook > > me. Upstream's answer is: > > > > Yes, of course. That is the reason for moving to the artistic license. > > > > What I am licensing is not the mathematical data itself (which i > > consider as unlicensable, as it is “truth”), but only the way how this > > data is packed. Anyone may modify this data and distribute it, as long > > as it does not claim to be the GAP transitive groups library. > > (The modified library may claim to be compatible with the GAP library, > > but then it is the modifiers duty to resolve this.) > > > > > > > > That sounds to me like upstream is okay with the naming restriction > > you suggested. I would be happier if upstream would simply strike the > > confusing sentence from the license file, but I suppose this will have > > to do. > > Are we okay to proceed with the transgrp review? Thank you, > -- > Jerry James > http://www.jamezone.org/ >
_______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
