[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Licensing, was elvis package



Alex Yukhimets <aqy6633@acf5.nyu.edu> wrote:
> First of all, there is no distinction between static and dynamic
> linkage from either Motif license or GPL point of view. (Well,
> actually Motif has one restriction on distribution of statically
> linked _shared_libraries_, for quite obvious reason - to prevent the
> distribution of simple wrappers).

The GPL has a clause that says you can only distribute a binary
you got from compiling the program if you can do so in a fashion that
all third parties can be licensed to do so at no charge.  Because
dynamically linked motif doesn't give you a license to use the program
unless you own a motif library, this is a distinction.

> Second, GPL prohibits distribution of emacs Linux binaries linked
> with Motif either way. (And if it allowed, emacs-?motif would go to
> contrib, not non-free).

If Motif were commonly distributed to debian linux users, we could put
it in contrib. [Except, with the current Motif license we couldn't ship
a motif package and an emacs package together. Then again, with the
current Motif license we can't ship a motif package.]

But, now that I think about it, we'd be hard pressed to even put it
in non-free. The "commonly available" exception wouldn't really apply
to emacs-smotif.deb. However, if "red-hat linux" were considered an
operating system which was distinct from "debian linux", we could
probably distribute an emacs-smotif.rpm for "red-hat", but that's
getting way outside our normal scope of operations.

The existence of the alien package only underlies this lack of
distinction.

-- 
Raul


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org


Reply to: