Re: new license?

[manu%netbsd.org@localhost (Emmanuel Dreyfus)]

SODA Noriyuki <soda%yuruyuru.net@localhost> wrote:

> Or, because there are many NetBSD developers who are working in the company
> which holds the copyright (Internet Initiative Japan Inc.),
> it may be better to ask them about this issue.

Do you have names to cast?

But odds seems very weak to me that we can reach someone at IIJ able to
republish under a license with clause 4 removed (Products derived from
this software may not be called "mod_encoding"...). 

I would rather check the package in with a specific licence
(mod-encoding-license) not approved by default. Since we distribute the
package as ap2-encoding, ap22-encoding or ap24-encoding, we will comply
with clause 4 even if we add a patch.

By the way, I think we suddently got overzealous on this issue. Clauses
similar to mod_encoding's license clause 4 are widespread in
pkgsrc/licenses. We often approve them by default and even distribute
patched software without changing the name (e.g. OpenSSL). If we
consider pkgsrc patches makes a derived software (I do not), then this
would be a license violation.

-- 
Emmanuel Dreyfus
http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz
manu%netbsd.org@localhost