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
> conditions".
>
> 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
> software.
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.
Luck,
Dwarf
--
_-_-_-_-_-_- _-_-_-_-_-_-_-
aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (904) 656-9769
Flexible Software 11000 McCrackin Road
e-mail: dwarf@polaris.net 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
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: