Re: New CUPS license violates DFSG 6?
Quoting the referenced message, for those who don't have it handy:
(RMS)
> The question is what licenses I could use for modified versions of
> Vim. Specifically, could I release a modified version of Vim under
> the GPL? A license is GPL-compatible if it permits that; otherwise,
> it is not GPL-compatible.
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 02:12:34PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote:
> > Could someone fork CUPS and remove that exception from the fork? I
> > think that would be needed for GPL-compatibility
> > (Message-ID: 200201062326.g06NQRc04761@aztec.santafe.edu).
>
> No, I don't think that is required. All that is required is that
> there are no additional restrictions above and beyond what the GPL
> has.
As I understood it, linking to or using GPL'd code means the program is a
derived work of the GPL'd code, so it needs to be licensable under the GPL.
RMS's message seemed to corroborate this. If this is wrong--in which case
I'd assume he was oversimplifying--I'd like to know where.
Would a license that permits--but does not require--distribution of modified
source be GPL-compatible if it also has a clause prohibiting adding extra
restrictions (as GPL #6)? It doesn't have any extra restrictions; instead,
it's lacking one. It clearly fails RMS's test.
I suppose we may be saying the same thing, actually, if we look at it
backwards: if this clause can't be removed, isn't it essentially an added
restriction that you can't force Apple to release their source?
> However, it would be nice to be able to revert it to straight
> GPL, since it would make things simpler when combining things.
Agreed.
--
Glenn Maynard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: