From: Arnout E. <no...@bz...> - 2014-01-18 12:39:05
|
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Dima Kogan <no...@di...>wrote: > First off, in 2009 Tuomo updated the license, removing the 28-day > clause. Notion's LICENSE file did not have this change. I'm attaching a > patch with the update. The mailing list post is > > > https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/ion-general/2009-September/001730.html[1] > Interesting, thanks for the heads-up. Generally it is of course very strange to 'patch in' a license change into a software - normally you can't legally do that. However in this case Tuomo clearly expresses his intent and GPG-signed the updated license, to it seems justified here. Unless someone objects, I'll probably apply the patch. > [[the Ion license]] clearly states that if 'Ion(tm)' can be associated > with the > > software, then the software must be renamed (i.e. an association comes > from the name). I think a strong case can be made that this is > DFSG-compliant. Ben's personal communication with Tuomo seems to > indicate a stronger condition than the text, but the text is what > defines the license, as you say. > Exactly, good summary. > When did you bring this up with debian-legal? Possibly we should bring > this up again. I can do this, if you like. Doing lots of debian things > these days... I'll try and look it up. Arnout |