  Re: Custom license question (Glk libraries)  "MJ Ray"
<mjr@phonecoop.coop> wrote in message 1131220940.900135.14123.nu
llmailer@me">news:1131220940.900135.14123.nullmailer@me...> I
think this is trying to be a shorter licence with the same
effect as the Artistic - you may edit it, but must change the
name. I'd say it follows the DFSG (integrity of source allows
name changes), but I have one doubt: if it's not changed, we can
use any means and conditions, but that's missing from the
modified permission. Does that matter? Probably not.  I see no
mention of changing the apps name. In fact all the way I see
this licence: 1. If unmodified distribute however you want. 2.
If modified you may distribute, but you must reference my name
and the URL given.  The one caveat I notice is that no
permission to modify the documentation is given. However, there
does not appear to be a need to include the documentation even
if distributing under #1. The licence is even less restrictive
than X11 or a BSD licence as you do not n