Re: license question

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

That looks like its own license.  Generally we use "a-license AND
b-license" when there are some files with a-license and some files with
b-license.

The usual response is:

  Has this license been determined to be Free Software by FSF, or Open
  Source by OSI?  If not, have you asked upstream to have it approved or
  use an approved license?

  Does debian permit this in main?  We don't formally treat licenses
  that debian ftp counts as meeting DFSG as open/free, but it's a strong
  argument that it is Free-ish.

  Regardless, if this license is not in pkgsrc/licenses already, even if
  neither authority has blessed it, you are free to add it as
  licenses/flashpix-license (with -license meaning it has not been
  approved by a pkgsrc-recognized authority).  Then, you can refer to
  it.  Discussion about it being adequately free (to drop the -license
  suffix) can happen independently; while we're picky about accurate
  sorting and license clarity in pkgsrc, we're fine with packages with
  properly-marked non-Free licenses.


In this particular case, the license is probably Free, but it's
boutiquish.  But I'm not FSF or OSI, and part of the point of pkgsrc
license rules is that individual developers and TNF do not decide if
licenses are ok.  It's definitely not the union of the two previous
ones, in particular because it has langauge talking about an "Agreement"
making it read as a contract license, rather than bsd/zlib which are
bare licenses (permissionw with conditions, and no notion of the
distibutor agreeing to terms).