Re: Cheops-ng: DFSG free or non-free?
On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:27:20AM -0500, Joe Moore wrote:
> Wesley W. Terpstra said:
> > So, what does that mean for a package where the copyright holder
> > distributes the package with an extra clause and GPL? Can I
> > redistribute it at all?
> >
> > PS. Please CC me on replies as I am not subscribed.
>
> IANAL, IANADD, IJRD-L.
>
> The last time this conversation came up, it ended that basically, there are
> three possibilities:
>
> If the package contains GPL'd code that is written by someone other than the
> main copyright holder (Adtran), then the package is undistributable.
Drat.
He includes adns (GPL) in the source tarball; so, that's that.
This means that they themselves are not allowed to distribute the program
too, correct? Since they are violating the terms of adns's copyright?
> This is because the GPL+advertising is not GPL-compatible.
Yes, this is clear.
> If the package contains only code copyrighted by Adtran (or at least, code
> that is licensed under this strange GPL+advertising license), then the
> actual license is not the GPL, but a new GPL-like (but GPL-incompatible)
> license that includes this advertising clause as part of its terms and
> conditions.
> In [this case], the license info for the Debian package should reflect
> that it is _not_ licensed under the GPL.
Woah. That's crazy!
Fortunately, also moot in this case.
> Third, (and this is uncertain legal territory) the work is licensed under
> the GPL, since the GPL explicitly delimits the "terms and conditions" in its
> text, and the additional requirements in the cited COPYING file are not
> legally binding, but are merely a request.
I take it that this is insufficient grounds for inclusion in main?
(Due to the uncertainty?)
Well, the only option available appears to be three... if at all.
The authors should be informed that they are violating the copyright of adns.
So, I will contact the author and ask him to re-release it as GPL.
Thanks.
--
Wesley W. Terpstra
Reply to: