Re: need comments on a copyright clause.
On Thu, 20 Nov 1997, Fabrizio Polacco wrote:
> I previously stated that Sleepycat's db2 license is now DFSG compliant.
> But now I'm not so sure, therefore I need help (I don't want to modify a
> program to directly use the new API if the library isn't DFSG; I've been
> hurted once and I've learned the lesson).
> In fact Sleepycat says that db2 is free for non-commercial use, because:
> > the license for DB 2.0, when downloaded from the net, requires that
> > the software that uses DB 2.0 be freely redistributable.
> The clause exactly states:
> > 3. Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on
> > how to obtain complete source code for the DB software and any
> > accompanying software that uses the DB software. The source code
> > must either be included in the distribution or be available for no
> > more than the cost of distribution plus a nominal fee, and must be
> > freely redistributable under reasonable conditions. For an
> > executable file, complete source code means the source code for all
> > modules it contains. It does not mean source code for modules or
> > files that typically accompany the operating system on which the
> > executable file runs, e.g., standard library modules or system
> > header files.
> That is to say that "the sources code of any accompanying software that
> uses the DB software must be freely redistributable under reasonable
> This seems to me to fail #9 of DFSG:
> > 9.License Must Not Contaminate Other Software
> > The license must not place restrictions on other software that is
> > distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the
> > license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the
> > same medium must be free software.
> It insist that executables linked with the library must be free
This is not contamination. This is just what the GPL insists. If you use
GPL software to create (link to) new software, that software must be GPL.
The non-contamination clause simply says that this library can not require
that all other software distributed with it be free. The license in
question does not seem to require this, so I would say that it qualifies
as DFSG compliant, at least on this point.
> Also the use of GPL on a library have the same effect.
> Does this mean that the use of GPL on a library instead of LGPL is not
> DFSG compliant beacuse of #9 ?
> #10 explicitly mention GPL as ok (for everything?) and doesn't mention
> LGPL at all.
The GPL does not require that all software shipped with it be GPL. This
is, in fact, one of the "freedoms" provided.
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Tallahassee, FL 32308
_-_-_-_-_-_- If you don't see what you want, just ask _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to email@example.com .