Re: Fwd: Re: kdrill licensing

[John Hasler <john@dhh.gt.org>]

Fabien Ninoles writes:
> I know that's don't make it able to go in main, but I would like
> to know what you think about the implications of such license.

And quotes:

> 1.  section 3c of the Artistic license, reguarding renaming executables
>     for distribution, is not a valid option, for section 3

I think this is ok because of 3a and 3b.

> 2.  You must redistribute the ENTIRE kdrill package (determined by the
>     distribution from ftp.bolthole.com), if you choose to redistribute it,
>     including all copyright, documentation, < source code, and any other
>     types of files

This is essentially a patch clause.

I think this could go into main, but I would suggest that the author
consider the GPL or the LGPL.  The Artistic is not a well drafted license,
and his modifications do not improve it.  I'm not at all sure that this
license, though DFSG compliant, accomplishes his goals.
-- 
John Hasler                This posting is in the public domain.
john@dhh.gt.org		   Do with it what you will.
Dancing Horse Hill         Make money from it if you can; I don't mind.
Elmwood, Wisconsin         Do not send email advertisements to this address.