Hauke Fath <hf%spg.tu-darmstadt.de@localhost> writes: > I am looking at importing wip/teapot, a little curses based spreadsheet > application. The relevant passage of the license (from doc/teapot.MM) is > > <snip> > You may use and modify this program or derived works without charge > for personal use and at work under the condition that no copyright > notices are removed or changed. Distributing teapot under different > conditions and any commercial use like charging for copying or selling > it or derived works, alone or as part of a bigger product, needs a > written license from me. > </snip> > > Is this "free use, but no commercial distribution" type covered by a > standard license type, or would I have to add a teapot-license file? If you find an existing file in pkgsrc/licenses with textually identical contents (aside from the name), then you can use it. But we do not have any notion of abstracting the terms to thinks lik "no commercial distribution". These notions are necessarily vague and people who care have to read the license.
Description: PGP signature