Re: apache non-free?
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 12:34:27PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Jules Bean wrote:
> > Now that *is* ridiculous.
> >
> > We are in no legal risk in any country because, quite clearly, the
> > Apache Group are the only people who could file a suit, and they're
> > patently not going to.
> >
> > The question here is about doing the right thing, it's not about real
> > legal risk.
>
> Please read again what Ben said:
> "Adding some patches is not a derivative."
Yes. I believe Ben's wrong, actually. But in any case, I wanted to
clamp down on the idea that we are putting ourselves at risk legally;
the Apache Group are our friends, and they will come and talk to us if
they have a problem with what we are doing.
> But there are cases where this problem doesn't arise because it's more
> clearly stated:
> e.g.
> - the copyright of abiword says "Modified versions of AbiWord may not be
> distributed using the AbiWord name without permission from AbiSource,
> Inc." so if there's no permission (it's not mentioned in
> debian/copyright) it's in this case clear that our patch of the source
> violates the copyright
Yes, the wider issue needs to be dealt with.
> or more simple
> - Copying of this file is authorized only if
> (1) you are D. E. Knuth, or if
> (2) you make absolutely no changes to your copy.
> [it's stated in other places that you are allowed to change this file
> when you rename it]
AFAIK we make absolutely no changes to the Knuthian files, or a LaTeX
files, as specified in those files (misguided, IMO) licenses. I don't
think we're in violation of this one.
Jules
Reply to: