Hi, On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 09:22:35PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote: > James Vega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2006 at 07:29:05PM +0200, Gernot Salzer wrote: > >> Copyright: > >> > >> * xpbiff - popup biff for X > >> * > >> * Author: Kazuhiko Shutoh, 1993 > >> * > >> * Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute without charge this > >> software, > > > > Doesn't the 'without charge' bit violate DFSG #1?
It is confusing for sure. But the intent of the author was probably to be a shorter funny version of MIT license. > If it is meant as it is written, yes. Often sentences like this can > also be read as "Permission, without charge, to use, copy, ...". But in > this particular case the "without charge" seems to be quite clearly > associated with "distribute". Let's ask the author nicely. It is a xbiff derivative. I think authour will be very likely to agree original MIT X license terms. Only his Imakefile and xpbiff.c seems to suffer this. Other sources in the tar-ball uses standard MIT X license. To be nice to him, I write following in Japanese. はじめまして。 DebianのMLのフォローです。 xpbiffですがImakefileとxpbiff.cのライセンスの文章が誤解を招いているのでは と心配しています。MITライセンスの文章を短くしちょっと冗談を入れられるのが 真意だと思うのですが。。。いかがでしょうか。 * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its * documentation for any purpose and without fee is hereby granted, provided * that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting * documentation. Kazuhiko Shutoh makes no representations about the * suitability of this software for any purpose. It is provided "as is" * without express or implied warranty. The author assumes no * responsibility for lost sleep as a consequence of use of this software. このような標準的MITライセンスの文章でライセンスされているつもりだという 確認のメールを返答いただけないでしょうか？ 現状のまま文字どおり読むと、無償配布以外ではまったく配布できないので デビアンではXBIFF同様のDEBIANのMAINでの配布ができなくなりますのでお願 い致しました。 (デビアンは http://www.debian.org です。） お手数ですがよろしくお願いいたします。（できれば英語でYESと返答お願いします。） 青木
