On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 20:27:40 +0200 Mattia Dongili wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 12:41:22AM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Oct 2005 23:46:52 +0200 Mattia Dongili wrote:
[...]
>
> [...]
> > Quoting from http://developer.intel.com/technology/iapc/acpi/faq.htm
> > :
> >
> > | Q9. Under what licensing is the source released?
> > | A9. ACPI CA can be licensed under the GNU General Public License
> > | or via a separate license that may be more favorable to commercial
> > | OSVs. Please see the source code license header for specifics.
> >
> > It seems that this software is meant to be dual licensed under
> > GPL/proprietary license.
> > You should perhaps seek clarification from upstream about this
> > point.
>
> that's what I did while submitting the ITP, and here's the
> clarification:
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=acpi4linux&m=112916177304146&w=2
Wow! The clarification seems even more confusing than my doubt! :-(
Quoting from that message by Andrew Grover:
| When you cut through the legalese, the ACPICA license, which is what
| the acpica-unix release is released under, is BSD-style. (Proof of
| this is that FreeBSD uses it ;-) So there shouldn't be any licensing
| issues.
I'm afraid he's referring to
http://developer.intel.com/technology/iapc/acpi/license2.htm
when he says "BSD-style" (which could mean almost anything...).
And he doesn't seem to say it's dual licensed...
If this is the case, we will have to carefully analyze that license
before we can state acpica-unix is DFSG-free... :-(
Please someone help! Can anyone (preferably an English native speaker,
which I am not) clarify the clarification? ;-)
| As for acpisrc, it is a very specialized tool that works in
| conjunction with some shellscripts to Linuxize the code. I don't think
| it is worth packaging, since only the guy who ports CA releases to
| Linux (i.e. Len Brown) really uses it... but it's there for the
| curious. (a nit: it doesn't attach GPLv2, it attaches dual BSD/GPLv2.)
This really puzzles me: a script can apply modifications to a work and
that modifications can be released under the GPLv2 or even under a dual
license GPLv2/other.
But how can a script (legally) alter the license of the preexisting work
it is applied to?
Maybe I completely missed the actual meaning of the above quoted
sentence... :-(
>
> There seems to be no problem then.
It's not yet clear (at least to me)... :-(
P.S.: Please reply to the list only, not to me. I'm a list subscriber
and would rather avoid receiving replies twice! Thanks.
--
:-( This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS? ;-)
......................................................................
Francesco Poli GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
Attachment:
pgpgYNGzXU_EO.pgp
Description: PGP signature