FW: NASM Licence

[Nelson Rush]

Good points.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Johnson [mailto:david at usermode.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2000 11:20 PM
To: palisade at users.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: NASM Licence


On Tue, 17 Oct 2000, you wrote:
> I think Julian agreed to dual licensing without knowing he was agreeing to
> it. Which leaves us at a strange impasse. Simon on the other hand has no
> problem with it being dual licensed.

My first reading of it seemed to say that it only "declared" GPL
compatibility, and if there were any problematic clauses or phrases, to be
interpreted on the side of compatibility. But I can easily see the other
side.

I still think that Debian is wrong in relicensing it under the GPL.
Copyright
law does not grant the recipient the right to relicense. And neither does
the
NASM license grant that right, the opposite in fact according to clause VII.
I would need something a little stronger than clause X before I assumed I
had
the right to alter the author's license. Considering that the authors are
not
in agreement, I'll gladly err on the side of caution.

 --
David Johnson
_______________________
http://www.usermode.org