Re: cdrecord: weird GPL interpretation
Brian Thomas Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu> writes:
> Raul Miller <moth@debian.org> writes:
>
>> I do agree that we should avoid upgrading to versions he's provided which
>> are accompanied by statements about copyright which conflict with the GPL.
>>
>> But I don't see any valid reason for pulling prior versions out of main.
>
> I see this as a similar circumstance to Pine. UW had very clearly
> given a free license, then switched to a loopy interpretation where we
> didn't have a license to distribute modified versions. So it got
> pulled from main. They changed their license for future versions --
> sure, they called it a clarification, but it was a pretty big change.
> But Debian doesn't distribute that old pine, because -- even when the
> copyright holder has gone insane -- it's polite to accede to their
> wishes.
>
> The same action is appropriate here.
There's a slight difference, if I am not mistaken. UW did not change
the license, and then claim that the new license would apply to
copies of old versions of the software received under the old
license. What they did was to clarify their interpretation of the
license, which although highly unusual was not self-contradicting.
--
Måns Rullgård
mru@mru.ath.cx
Reply to: