2008/2/4, Dirk Mueller <dmueller@suse.de>:
On Monday 04 February 2008, Christian Morales Vega wrote:
An easy solution is to recommend him the GPL. But a lot of them want a licence that: a) Is "free". Allowing the redistribution at no cost. b) Does *not* allows "commerical" use.
GPL does not forbid commercial use. It however makes sure that your rights are preserved if used commercially. I think thats what the author actually wants, but you probably want to double check that. But even LGPL does enforce that already.
Well, what people often says is: "if someone is going to make commerical use/distribution of my software I also want to receive a part of the money".
c) Requires any redistribution to make reference to the original author.
That sounds like the advertising clause in BSD or similar. This is according to FSF's view incompatible with the GPL. I'm not able to judge if that view is justified or not. It does have a bad smell though. To me at least.
If he accepts to licence under <licence>. How can I prove that he allowed me to redistribute the software under that licence? I need to ask him to modify the files hosted in his website adding the licence?
The latter would be preferrable indeed, but adding a LICENSE file stating the exact terms and installing it as part of the package would be the minimum, IMHO.
Greetings, Dirk
-- RPMLINT information under http://en.opensuse.org/Packaging/RpmLint --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+help@opensuse.org
-- The best way to accelerate a computer running Windows is at 9.81 m/s² Jabber: reddwarf <arroba> jabber.org Teléfono SIP: sip:christian.morales.vega <arroba> ekiga.net sip:608608 <arroba> ekiga.net