Re: Does this license meet DSFG?

2010-04-23 Thread Peter Palfrader
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Anthony W. Youngman wrote:

 Is this intentional?

 No. Because the grant of licence DOES allow regrading, therefore what  
 any particular version of the GPL says is irrelevant. The recipient CAN  
 change the licence from GPL3 to GPL2 (or vice versa) because the *grant*  
 gives him permission.

I can only combine works licensed under this license with works that
allow changing to gpl2 *and* allow changing back to gpl3 *and* allow
changing back to gpl3.  That's what 4d says.

-- 
   |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
  Peter Palfrader  | : :' :  The  universal
 http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `'  Operating System
   |   `-http://www.debian.org/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100423085157.ga28...@anguilla.noreply.org



Re: One-line licence statement

2010-04-23 Thread Simon McVittie
(Summary of the thread for Joey's benefit: some software mentioned on
debian-legal had a one-line license which was intended to be
almost-public-domain, but failed to give explicit permission to copy and
modify. Franck is talking to that software's author to get it relicensed in
a DFSG way; I suggested the ikiwiki basewiki license.)

On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 at 11:26:43 +1000, Ben Finney wrote:
 Franck Joncourt franck.m...@dthconnex.com writes:
  On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 09:57:58PM +0100, Simon McVittie wrote:
   A 2-line version that seems good is the one Joey Hess uses for the
   parts of ikiwiki that get copied into users' wikis, among other
   things:
   
   http://git.ikiwiki.info/?p=ikiwiki;a=blob;f=debian/copyright
   Redistribution and use in source and compiled forms, with or without
   modification, are permitted under any circumstances. No warranty.
   
   It's shorter than the canonical version of the WTFPL, and seems to
   cover all the necessary things for a permissive free software
   license:
   
   * allows unmodified and modified copying
   * allows binary distributions
   * explicitly disclaims warranty (quite important in some
   jurisdictions, I hear)
 
 My one quibble is that the “No warranty” is open to misinterpretation.
 (I usually make it a complete declarative sentence: “No warranty
 expressed or implied.”) But not very much, so it's a minor quibble, and
 I wouldn't reject any software on that basis.
 
  Upstream took a look at it and is going to adpot this one.
 
  Many thanks for your help.
 
 Yes, thanks for presenting that license text; I agree that it's superior
 to WTFPL, and worth suggesting for these use cases.
 
 Does it have a snappy name that we can use to refer to it?

Not that I know of; judging by putting this wording into Google, only Joey
uses it. I called it the ikiwiki basewiki license above, but I don't think
that's necessarily a good way to refer to it out of context. The rest of
ikiwiki is not under this license (it's mostly GPL), and the definition
of the basewiki is ikiwiki jargon.

Joey, I don't suppose you have a name for this license? :-)

Regards,
Simon


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20100423130046.ge23...@reptile.pseudorandom.co.uk



Re: One-line licence statement

2010-04-23 Thread Joey Hess
Simon McVittie wrote:
 Not that I know of; judging by putting this wording into Google, only Joey
 uses it. I called it the ikiwiki basewiki license above, but I don't think
 that's necessarily a good way to refer to it out of context. The rest of
 ikiwiki is not under this license (it's mostly GPL), and the definition
 of the basewiki is ikiwiki jargon.
 
 Joey, I don't suppose you have a name for this license? :-)

I'm embarrassed enough at participating in license proliferation, to add
another name too. :-p

However, this is basically a heavily modified three-clause BSD license[1],
so an ad-hoc term for it might be zero-clause BSD without paranoid
warantee disclaimer.

Its warantee disclaimer is indeed weak. I don't know that I would
want to use this on any software that could cause trouble if it broke.
The files it was attached to are mostly templates that users go in and
edit, and some documentation.

-- 
see shy jo

[1] 
http://git.ikiwiki.info/?p=ikiwiki;a=blobdiff;f=debian/copyright;h=9a57467517e896381323b574c9177f58617d7f97;hp=9b3639b35880a020f87a76b4f203da43b3589239;hb=56f8e6344c4c05656e83a47c1f7883ecc7d9808e;hpb=79751cdaf2f8a5c1017a11fedef7421e0fecf212


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature