Bug#821150: cmucl: non-DFSG license

Peter Van Eynde pvaneynd at debian.org
Mon Jun 13 07:12:09 UTC 2016

Hello Dmitry,

On 19/04/16 23:18, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> But this requirement is not optional. License do not allow us to speculate 
> whether they are checking their post box or email and choose whether to 
> comply with this requirement...

I checked and nobody is listening anymore at that email address, or at
xerox in general. For all intents and purposes the upstream is gone.

Furthermore I've discussed this with the CMUCL developers and they,
being native English speakers, interpret this requirement "Any person
obtaining a copy of this software is requested ..." is a request and
this optional, not required. So SHOULD in the rfc2119 way, not MUST.

Is there a precedent or ruling on the 'is requested' in licenses?

Best regards, Peter

signature -at- pvaneynd.mailworks.org
God, root, what is difference?-Pitr|God is more forgiving.-Dave Aronson|

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 989 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-common-lisp-devel/attachments/20160613/edffbd3b/attachment.sig>

More information about the pkg-common-lisp-devel mailing list