Re: license change?

On Thu, 2019-07-04 at 10:20 +0200, Bryan Stansell via users wrote:

> So, it’s more the lack of explicitly stating the code can be
> modified.

Since then I talked to one of RedHat's lawyers and they mentioned that
they have dealt with this problem too and also concluded that these
licenses were intended to cover modification. The current wording of
the initial part of the BSD license reflects an attempt to correct an
earlier mistake (i.e. someone pointed out the error and Berkeley added
"with or without modification"). Also the anti-endorsement clause
implies a right to modify.

> And, as it says, I had (probably still have, somewhere) an email from
> the author clarifying

Adding that email to the package would be helpful to get conserver
moved from Debian non-free to Debian main.

> the INSTALL file has my notes from back in 2003, apparently

Would you mind moving the INSTALL notes to either the LICENSE file or a
README.license file? Publishing the email would also help.

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://bonedaddy.net/pabs3/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part