Re: need comments on a copyright clause.
Dale Scheetz wrote:
>
> The non-contamination clause simply says that this library can not
> require that all other software distributed with it be free.
> The license in question does not seem to require this, [...]
>> 3. Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on
>> how to obtain complete source code for the DB software and any
>> accompanying software that uses the DB software. The source code
>> must either be included in the distribution or be available for no
>> more than the cost of distribution plus a nominal fee, and must be
>> freely redistributable under reasonable conditions.
please, reread this:
]> complete source code for any accompanying software that uses the DB
]> software. The source code must be freely redistributable under
]> reasonable conditions.
IMHO this is "requiring that all other software distributed with it be
free".
> > Also the use of GPL on a library have the same effect.
> >
> The GPL does not require that all software shipped with it be GPL.
In fact I'm saying this doesn't seem to be DFSG compliant.
You've already said:
>
> This is not contamination. This is just what the GPL insists.
> If you use GPL software to create (link to) new software, that
> software must be GPL.
I agree; in fact FSF have created LGPL to avoid this "contamination"
when using GPL for a library (as in this case).
On their FAQ, they say that this is done on purpose: it's free for
non-commercial use.
Fabrizio
--
| fpolacco@icenet.fi fpolacco@debian.org fpolacco@pluto.linux.it
| Pluto Leader - Debian Developer & Happy Debian 1.3.1 User - vi-holic
| 6F7267F5 fingerprint 57 16 C4 ED C9 86 40 7B 1A 69 A1 66 EC FB D2 5E
> Just because Red Hat do it doesn't mean it's a good idea. [Ian J.]
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: