Re: New DFSG Draft revision #3
On Jan 15, Buddha Buck wrote:
> The GPL does restrict what licenses that can be used on third-party
> libraries linked to the software. In order to link a library to GPLed
> software, it must be distributable under a GPL-compatable license, or
> it must be a system library normally distributed with the system.
Well, strictly speaking, you can link whatever you damn well please
with GPL code so long as you don't redistribute it... even Qt :-) But
the point is taken.
> This clause is saying that that is OK, but saying "distribute only with
> other Open Source Software" is not OK.
Got it.
> How about:
>
> The license can impose license restrictions on the third party
> software (such as libraries) necessary for the operation of the
> licensed software only as is needed so that the licenses are
> compatable with each other.
>
> The license may not impose license restrictions on third-party
> software not necessary for the operation of the licensed software
> that may merely reside on the same system or distribution as the
> licensed software
Sounds good.
> > "along with"? How about "in addition to", to include the GPL's
> > "separate source with reasonable copying fee" (paraphrasing here)
> > exception. "along with" implies conjunction; "in addition to" doesn't
> > carry that connotation. Or a separate sentence to specifically permit
> > the GPL exception (e.g. This may include a requirement for the
> > licensee to provide the source code for any executables for a
> > reasonable copying fee.)
>
> Do you feel that the clause, as stated, would make the GPL
> nonDFSG-compatable?
>From the GPL (can I excerpt from the GPL?):
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software
interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
[Option (c) doesn't really matter; it permits people who don't
commercially distribute the software to pass on an offer under
(b)... I suppose by transferring the right to do (b) to the
recipient.]
I don't think it would conflict as-written with the GPL, since "in
addition to" is actually less restrictive than "along with", and we're
enumerating maximum levels of restrictiveness in this section. OTOH I
don't think we could viably include anything more restrictive than "in
addition to" without requiring people to buy the source CD(s) (which
makes a nice coffee coaster for a lot of end users, but still costs
money that could be better spent on other things if you don't want
it). So I guess this proposed change would "lower the bar" on the
maximum restriction on redistribution to exclude things that
absolutely require source to be provided with the binary at the same
time (unless the source is packaged in "binary" as well
... e.g. tetex-src).
Chris
--
=============================================================================
| Chris Lawrence | The Linux/m68k FAQ |
| <quango@watervalley.net> | http://www.linux-m68k.org/faq/faq.html |
| | |
| Grad Student, Pol. Sci. | This address has been spam-proofed |
| University of Mississippi | All spam goes to your postmaster |
=============================================================================
Reply to: