On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 07:17:23PM +0100, Laurent Fousse wrote: > I'd like to have your opinion about a GPL compatibility issue. > Libcanlock has been ITP'ed (#204933) and the goal is to have slrn use > it (#127901). However, slrn is GPL and libcanlock is made of several > files : > > - one is BSD licensed Presumably 3-clause BSD, that's fine. > - some are under the X11 license as found in > http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html Canonical example of a completely unrestricted license, that's fine too. > - one is taken from RFC 3174 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3174.html, > license terms at the end). Not a chance, that's nowhere near GPL-compatible. It also appears to be non-free in its own right. > I don't like the wording of "derivative work that comment on...", I > think it narrows the scope of what kind of derivative works are > allowed. It prohibits almost any derivative work. This is very close to a "shared source" license. The only derivative works permitted are: - comments on the document - things that "assist in its implementation" - anything that the IETF decide they want to do as part of their "Internet Standards" process Notable things that this prohibits: - development of competing standards - implementing anything that does not conform - anything that is entirely unrelated -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature