-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Hello Forum:
thanks a lot for your constructive comments. On 12/03/16 04:37, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 01:39:12PM +1100, Ben Finney a écrit : >> Jerome BENOIT <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> On 11/03/16 21:15, Riley Baird wrote: >>>> That licence is fine. >>>> >>> So now step forward in peace. >> >> Before achieving peace, please see the rest of the thread in >> ‘debian-legal’; I disagree with Riley's assessment. > > Hi Ben, > > this ad-hoc license is obviously not of the same quality as some general > license written with lawyer advice, but I think that the missing explicit > permission is a honest imperfection, especially that the software has already > been redistributed for years, and that its relicensing was explicitely done to > further facilitate the redistribution and incorporation in larger works. The > license that we are discussing allows redistribution, and one person receiving > the sources will receive them with a copy of the license, so the author > probably considers it obvious that the recipient can use the software under > that license, and that this does not have to be explicitely written. > > In my opinion, this software is DFSG-free, even if its license text could be > improved or replaced by a more general, frequently used and well-understood > license > I have asked for clarification to the upstream team. > Have a nice week-end, > Best regards, Jerome -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJW5H0oAAoJEIC/w4IMSybjO4oIAJlbKDpxtAJ+JhUKESa72mK1 JDeF5zgS4IRncoqVQ6u3xHaCAbgQnqecQBTPAeQ+V3hKC24x5l0Jt5x74SX18oGy kSyLybGRhYN4sDNojhlgGGZMcOcKzMNWqEbFeafNDJ7kDLFhwplZ4M3dHSjPqi+Q u9fT2/XdgDj6aKdB6BYsTe4tsbhmQk4dT116WOh/I3/zKFUet+cBzHN678/wXAim 1zZDZPNFGVPzsBTT4xxyh1NK9nsz1BVTKrW4voHbB4Shvrc5bAUmLuafqGSO9yur b01d6vYVvjgMo3IJrWFZxzF7h+O6f5TTTH47KsQbUeQYi9tDhh6WFJi1xurIccM= =clNc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
