Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Feb 09, 2006 at 11:04:32AM +0200, Jari Aalto wrote: > >> I'm preparing a package and would like to hear if this licence >> (author's voice) is DSFG free. I intend to add this to >> debian/copyright: > >> License: > >> The snow source code and the algorithms contained within it are free >> for non-commercial use. Licences for commercial single-customer >> applications will usually be granted free of charge, but contact the >> author for confirmation. > > Certainly not; this is a clear use restriction. > >> Notes: > >> (*)As of 29 May 1999 the source code has changed from being public >> domain to being free for non-commercial use. However, commercial users >> are automatically granted a licence for any use of the snow code and >> algorithms deployed before this date. > >> Also in what section would this software go: main, non-free? > > This seems to be the same question as the one you asked above? Perhaps you > meant to ask first whether it's ok for Debian to distribute it.
Yes, this was the intention of the second question. > Anyway, I don't see anything in this license that constitutes > permission to redistribute; given that the author apparently also > doesn't know what "public domain" means, I certainly wouldn't rely > on perceived implicit permission to redistribute the code when > putting it into non-free. So the correct procedure, in order to submit the package to Debian, is to get the Author to agree with a licence that's in par with DSFG. I'll see what I can do. Btw, is DSFG close to OSI approved or are there list somewhere that describes the difference? Thanks, Jari -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
