Re: ESL license
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 15:21:55 -0700, Derek Parnell
<guest at RapidEuphoria.com> wrote:
>And I quote ...
>
>--------------------NOTICE-------------------------------*
>-- Software ID: win32lib
>-- Version: 0.60.6 19/September/2004
>-- Copyright: (c) 2000 /"David Cuny" and friends
>-- All rights reserved.
>-- Licence:
>-- This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied warranty.
>-- In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages arising from
>-- the use of this software.
>--
>-- Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
>-- including commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it
>-- freely, subject to the following restrictictions:
>-- 1. The origin of this software must not be misrepresented; you must not
>-- claim that you wrote the original software.
>-- 2. If you use this software in a product, acknowedgement in the product's
>-- documenation and binary are required.
>-- 3. Altered source versions, and works substantially derived from the it,
>-- must...
>-- a) be plainly be marked as such,
>-- b) not be misrepresented as the original software,
>-- c) include this notice, unaltered.
>--------------------End of NOTICE------------------------*
I've always felt oddly ill at ease with 3 c). Maybe it should say:
include this notice, unaltered, preceded by "Based on:"?
2. might also have (unless this source is shipped unaltered with the
product, or won't work without a separate download of this source).
Just my thoughts, nothing serious,
Pete
PS I also think that the ESL, as a "carefully selected collection of
snippets of code from various authors" would be unfair to *require*
acknowledgement in the documentation and binaries that use it, as it
is frankly too difficult to compile a complete and honest list of all
those that may have originally contributed lines of code. Such
acknowledgement should instead be "appreciated but not required".
Again, that is just my personal opinion, though.
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
