Hi,
The comments below might not apply to the current package, but
are addressed to some of the troubling aspects of the license.
,
| 14. ADDITIONAL TERM: ATTRIBUTION
| (a) As a modest attribution to the organizer of the development of
| the Original Code (Original
Would you explain:-
- can section 14 be a requirement to display an advert and must the
openproj software display such an advert? (possible DFSG 3 problem)
No advertising is required simply the OpenProj logo as noted in the
Exhibit (see below).
- why is NPL replaced with CPAL in section
Laurent Chretienneau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The CPAL is an OSI approved license.
That's informative, but not sufficient to show that *software* under that
licence follows the DFSG. (OSI has lawyers advocating licences, while
debian looks at software for users.)
Would you explain:-
- can
Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked:
On 9/13/07, Laurent Chretienneau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* License : (CPAL)
Seems like another MPL-based license. Any volunteers for reviewing it?
(I don't have time atm.)
Differences from the MPL, found with a wdiff:
3.6 Distribution of
The CPAL is an OSI approved license.
Andrew Donnellan [EMAIL PROTECTED] asked:
On 9/13/07, Laurent Chretienneau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* License : (CPAL)
Seems like another MPL-based license. Any volunteers for reviewing it?
(I don't have time atm.)
Differences
On 9/15/07, Laurent Chretienneau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The CPAL is an OSI approved license.
Debian, as well as the FSF, has rejected many OSI-approved licenses before.
(Being OSI-approved does of course mean you've come most of the way to
being DFSG-free, but a lot of OSI approved licenses
On 9/13/07, Laurent Chretienneau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist
Owner: Laurent Chretienneau [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Package name: openproj
Version : 0.9.4
Upstream Author : Projity Inc.
* URL : http://www.openproj.org
* License :
7 matches
Mail list logo
