Hi gang, Hack Kampbjorn wrote on Thursday, September 25, 2003 9:04 PM: > Gareth Pearce wrote: >> One thing to note is that in debian it is distributed under non-free. >> So perhaps someone might like to comment on if the license is valid >> for setup.exe distribution. > > If Debian has put it under non-free it does not meet Debian's poliy > for main.
Possibly only, because it is not listed in the OSD approved licenses? > It's problamy not compatible with GPL or the OpenSource > Definition >> >> For reference: >> http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/graphviz/license/index.html >> http://www.research.att.com/sw/tools/graphviz/download.html > > I could not find the license under OSD Approved Licenses. And it's > way too longer to get an idea about it without spending several hours > with a lawyer 8-( http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php Not beeing a lawyer either, AT&T points out the difference to other Open Source licenses and it remembers me strongly at Cygwin's own policy (only that AT&T wants to have any rights on the patches). Since it compiles OOTB anyway and you do not have to change anything and the distribution of source is provided by Cygwin's setup, I cannot see any basic difference to other OS licenses. To get an agreement recipiants of the package is problematic for any license, according to German law someone must have read the license always *before* installation to bound to it (at least this is the general direction) ... would be quite unhandy for distributions <g> Regards, Jörg
