On Sun, Feb 3, 2019 at 8:53 PM Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Yes, I did. I'm terribly sorry for the delay. Other events overtook > me. Upstream's answer is: > > Yes, of course. That is the reason for moving to the artistic license. > > What I am licensing is not the mathematical data itself (which i > consider as unlicensable, as it is “truth”), but only the way how this > data is packed. Anyone may modify this data and distribute it, as long > as it does not claim to be the GAP transitive groups library. > (The modified library may claim to be compatible with the GAP library, > but then it is the modifiers duty to resolve this.) > > > > That sounds to me like upstream is okay with the naming restriction > you suggested. I would be happier if upstream would simply strike the > confusing sentence from the license file, but I suppose this will have > to do. Are we okay to proceed with the transgrp review? Thank you, -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/ _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
