Re: Cryptlib licence
On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 09:53:02AM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote:
> Then we go deep into GPL territory. "the source code for all modules [the
> executable] contains or uses, [barring anything shipped with the OS]" is
> useless from Debian's POV, because we either ship everything or nothing as
> part of the OS, depending on which side of the "operating system" boundary
> you think Debian sits. Microsoft would love to have people extend the OS
> definition deep into application space. <grin>
Keywords here: "typically accompany the major components of the operating system on which the executable file runs."
If you consider Debian the Operating System then it doesn't matter to
Debian.
If you consider Linux and the various Linux distributions the operating
system then it depends on what you consider typically...
In the end I don't think this really matters to Debian. It doesn't
contaminate other licenses because it doesn't stipulate the terms under
which the other software has to be made available (e.g. it's not viral),
it just stipulates that the source code has to be available. Which
Debian already requires.
> It appears that the author wants many of the protections of the GPL - down
> to the OS exemption - without actually using the GPL. My recommendation
> would be to relicence under the GPL and be done with it - it is a widely
> analysed licence whose effects are fairly well understood.
My guess would be the author doesn't want the viral nature of the GPL.
They want copyleft, but not copyleft that is as restrictive about the
nature under which the source is made available.
--
Ben Reser <ben@reser.org>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
Reply to: