Re: Licensing, was elvis package
Kai Henningsen <kaih@khms.westfalen.de> wrote:
> rdm@test.legislate.com (Raul Miller) wrote on 26.04.98 in <[🔎] 19980426181316.09838@hazel>:
>
> > Alex Yukhimets <aqy6633@acf5.nyu.edu> wrote:
> > > 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
> > > under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
> > > Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
> > > ^^^^
> > > a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
> > > source code, which must be distributed under the terms of
> > > Sections
> > > 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software
> > > interchange;
> >
> > Note that Sections 1 and 2 do NOT require that all the source be
> > licensed under the same terms.
>
> So what? You can't pick just the parts of the license you like.
Please read what you just quoted. See where it says "or executable
form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above"? That's where it's
talking about the license required. Most of the rest is talking about
the source disclosure requirement.
In other words, I didn't pick just the parts of the license I like.
The license explicitly refers to the definitions presented in
sections 1 and 2.
Or did you have some other point?
> > I don't see any requirement that all code be relicensed under the
> > GPL, only a "source code available" requirement (and even then
> > not always, for proprietary operating systems).
> >
> > [I've taken the liberty of not quoting the rest of the stuff which
> > basically just re-makes this point.]
>
> Ah, no. That was the part that made the point that
>
> *if you distribute binaries*,
>
> you have additional obligations. And Motif only fits if it's part of the
> OS. Which, for Debian, it isn't.
The additional obligation is that you be wiling to redistribute the
source. There is *NO* obligation that you re-license Motif under the
GPL. Any license which allows unrestricted access to the Motif
source is fine. Thus, any DFSG compliant license is fine.
Yes, there is a special exception to this rule, to make it legal for
someone to distribute binaries for proprietary OSes. And, yes,
it's clear that Motif on linux doesn't qualify. And, yes, I had
earlier made a mistake and said that I thought it would be ok to
distribute an emacs linked against Motif statically.
There were really two issues brought up in this thread:
(1) That the GPL required that other linked in software also
be GPL licensed. This is false.
(2) That the GPL prohibitted distribution of emacs binaries linked
against Motif, with the current Motif license. This is true.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: