Re: Licensing, was elvis package
Shaya Potter <spotter@kby.netmedia.net.il> wrote:
> What defines a standard linux installation. Each dist. in reality
> is it's own OS. Red Hat ships Motif, would it be legal for them to
> distribute a GPL'd program linked with Motif, and not for debian?
Only if the result can "be licensed as a whole at no charge to all
third parties under the terms of" the GPL.
> Essentially, I think that this part of the GPL is very vauge, and when
> comes down to real legal terms is on the shaky side.
If you think the GPL is wierd, you should take a look at the Motif
license for Linux.
> As an aside, I am beggining to think that we need a better license,
> from a legal perspective, because with all the issues of shared
> libraries, "essential parts", and who knows what else, if someone
> would really try to challange the GPL in a court, I don't know if it
> would stand up.
FUD.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: