Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 02:43:50PM -0500, Andrew Overholt wrote:
adaptx license.txt
[2]
http://svn.codehaus.org/castor/adaptx/trunk/src/doc/license.txt
This seems to be BSD-like to me. There is condition that I dislike,
because it doesn't have an obvious meaning (a clause similar is often
seen on scientific packages):
5. Due credit should be given to the ExoLab Group (http://www.exolab.org).
It doesn't explain when credit is "due", how credit should be given.
Is it for the use, the redistribution, both? I don't think this is a
blocker, though. My interpretation is that having this license in the
package is enough.
"should" is also open to interpretation. It makes it sound like a
suggestion but not a requirement.
The key question of whether this is GPL compatible or not, is if this
counts as an "additional requirement" or not. It is unclear if this is
even a requirement.
Warren Togami
wtogami@xxxxxxxxxx
--
Fedora-maintainers mailing list
Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
--
Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list
Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
