[Debian-med-packaging] Bug#807580: More licensing issues (Was: BLAT license)

[Michael Crusoe]

If you are looking to ensure that derivative works aren't relicensed, and
you want to use an existing license (which I recommend) then you are
looking for a copyleft license.

I like this interactive guide to software licenses:
http://oss-watch.ac.uk/apps/licdiff/

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015, 10:35 Andreas Tille <andreas at an3as.eu> wrote:

> Hi Jim,
>
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 09:03:50AM +0100, Jim Kent wrote:
> > Perhaps I did not phrase it directly enough.  I ended my last email with
> > > > > Perhaps in your files is a license that has a word or two on this
> > subject
> > > > > already?
> >
> > By this I mean,  do you have a license that mentions something about not
> > allowing sublicenses on the license?  Could you send it to me if you do?
>
> I'm afraid I'm not sure what you mean by "sublicenses".  Do you think
> that redistribution of possibly changed code is "sublicensing"?  Please
> check whether the license you have in mind will have any conflict with
> the following DFSG guidelines which are widely accepted as open source
> definition:
>
>    https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
>
> If you see any conflict in any of these items we probably can not find
> any license that will fit your needs.  It would help if you would
> exactly specify what you want to approach with the license.
>
> Kind regards
>
>      Andreas.
>
> --
> http://fam-tille.de
>
> _______________________________________________
> Debian-med-packaging mailing list
> Debian-med-packaging at lists.alioth.debian.org
>
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/debian-med-packaging
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/debian-med-packaging/attachments/20151211/71b92a85/attachment-0001.html>