Re: installing on RiscPC
On Fri, 5 Oct 2001, Wookey wrote:
>Just to clarify this a little for -legal readers:
>There is a set of boot utils for the risc PC that are necesary to partition
>the drive and boot a kernel, written by Russell King (arm kernel maintainer).
>These are not curretnly distributed with debian-arm boot-floppies because we
>don't think the license is DFSG compliant. It would be very nice if they
>could because it doesn't look like anyone else is going to writing
>replacements in a hurry.
>The author thinks it is sufficiently free and doesn't want to change it (see
>previous mail). So can we include this or not? Any good arguments for
>persuading the author that in fact the licence isn't free? part of this
>software is needed by boot-floppies - just putting the software in non-free
>isn't going to help this aspect as I presume it's no good having b-f
>build-depends on something in non-free. Perhaps we could find te resources to
>re-implement that bit...
>The current license in full is:
>1. The `original author' contained here in is Russell King, currently
> contactable at email@example.com
>2. The `source code' refers to the machine-readable source code,
> suitable for compilers to create the program, which is the form
> used to make modifications to that code.
>3. The `program' refers to the machine-executable code which is derived
> from this source code.
>Copy these sources as much as you want! It's totally free of charge, and
>as such is provided WITHOUT warranty. This program is supplied "AS IS",
>and as such, all damages, loss of data, inaccurate data, loss of earnings,
>failure of the program and costs caused through use of this program are
>entirely your own, and not the authors nor contributors.
>The following conditions are imposed on this source code and program:
>1. Any changes should be forwarded to the original author for inclusion
> in a later release of the tools.
>2. You may modify the sources at your own will. However, if you modify
> the sources or use the sources in your own programs, you must give
> due credit to the original author which must be visible to the user
> of your program.
>3. You may not redistribute the programs nor the source code, in hole
> or in part, under the same name(s) as the original program/source
DFSG 4/Pine issues. Actually, couple this with #2 above, and I cannot see
the case where you are allowed to distribute patches. You are allowed to
change the whole program, but a one-line patch has no authority between
clauses 2 and 3, despite clause 2's implicit declaration. Changes "should"
be forwarded upstream (clause 1), and there's no other mechanism at all to
distribute patch files, therefore there is no way at all this license can
pass DFSG 3, despite the watering down of the "under the same license"
clause, since a conduit upstream is in no way a form of distribution.
>4. All other forms of modification are strictly prohibited.
I'm trying to see a place where this isn't a no-op. If we can find one,
that kills the license, regardless of the previous three clauses. That
is, if there exists a case where clause 4 becomes meaningful, and
prohibits an otherwise legitimate distribution, the license is non-free.
>5. A copy of this copyright notice must be included with any
> distribution or redistribution of this source code, and with any
> subsequent program distribution.
Armageddon means never having to say you're sorry.
Who is John Galt? firstname.lastname@example.org, that's who!