Re: GPL compatible license?
Scripsit Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>
> Could somebody check if this license is compatible with the GPL? It was
> considered free with Debian, if I remember correctly.
> 1. You may, without additional permission from the authors, distribute
> Elm or components of Elm, with or without additions developed by
> you or by others at no charge. You may also distribute Elm along
> with any other product for sale, provided that the cost of the
> bundled package is the same regardless of whether Elm is included,
> and provided that those interested only in Elm must be notified
> that it is a product freely available from the Elm Development Group.
Hm, is this even free? I don't think so.
> 2. You may, without additional permission from the authors, distribute
> copies of the Elm Documentation, with or without additions developed by
> you or by others at no charge or at a charge that covers the cost of
> reproducing the copies, provided that the Elm copyright notice is
> retained.
This is not a free license for the documentation.
> 3. Furthermore, if you distribute Elm software or parts of Elm, with
> or without additions developed by you or others, then you must
> either make available the source to all portions of the Elm system
> (exclusive of any additions made by you or by others) upon request,
> or instead you may notify anyone requesting source that it is
> freely available from the Elm Development Group.
The requirement to distribute the entire original source, rather than
just source for the part one is actually using, seems
GPL-incompatible. I am not sure whether it is DFSG-free or not; it
might be saved by the patch exception.
The alternative option to notice "anyone requesting source" seems to
be impractical - would I be required to send such a notice along with
the answer to every HTTP request for my forked source tarball?
> 4. In addition, you may not omit any of the copyright notices
> on either the source files, the executable file, or the
> documentation, and
I don't think this is problematic.
> 5. Also, you may not omit transmission of this License
> agreement with whatever portions of Elm that are distributed.
I wonder whether that would be considered to fulfill the obligations
to "notify that it is freely available from the Elm Development Group"...
> 6. Lastly, any users of this software must be notified that it is
> without warrantee or guarantee of any nature, express or implied,
> nor is there any fitness for use represented.
It is unclear what the material meaning of this is supposed to be.
It may be an informational no-op, but I can also imagine egregiously
non-free interpretations.
--
Henning Makholm "`Update' isn't a bad word; in the right setting it is
useful. In the wrong setting, though, it is destructive..."
Reply to: