Re: need comments on a copyright clause.
Bruce Perens wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Note the words "distributed along with" in item 9. This is clearly
> a weaker relationship than "derived works", which are addressed in
> item 3. If you wish, you can read it as "distributed along with the
> licensed software, but are not derived works of the licensed
> software".
OK. Then maybe we should change 9. title to:
9. License Must Not Contaminate Non-derived Software
This thread make me think that it is DFSG compliant to have a library
under GPL instead of LGPL.
What about a collection of libraries that mixes both types?
I have looked at glibc-2.1 snapshots and they include this library with
this GPL-like license.
Therefore libc6 will mix LGPL libs (that can be linked to commercial
programs, given the limits in LGPL/6b) with GPL libs (that cannot be
linked to commercial programs); shouldn't this be clearly explained?
People currently thinks that glibc is under LGPL as a whole.
another issue:
DFSG doesn't say anything about LGPL. There are several bugs recently
raised against packages that changes a LGPL library to GPL. But this is
clearly permitted by LGPL and "infects" all works using (and linking to)
the library in the debian package.
Maybe we should say somewhere that debian maintainer cannot change LGPL
to GPL. AFAIK actually we don't.
Fabrizio
--
| fpolacco@icenet.fi fpolacco@debian.org fpolacco@pluto.linux.it
| Pluto Leader - Debian Developer & Happy Debian 1.3.1 User - vi-holic
| 6F7267F5 fingerprint 57 16 C4 ED C9 86 40 7B 1A 69 A1 66 EC FB D2 5E
--
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: