Re: New DFSG Draft revision #3
Chris Lawrence wrote:
> On Jan 14, Darren Benham wrote:
>
> > The license may extend this restriction to third-party libraries
> > linked to the software at compile time, run time or both. It may not
> > apply this restriction to software that merely resides on the same
> > system or distribution as the licensed software. _<OR>_ The license
> > can restrict the third-party libraries used in creating modified or
> > derived works only on the basis that the licenses must be compatible
> > with it's own. It may not restrict software that merely resides on the
> > same system or distribution as the licensed software.
>
> I don't understand what this is getting at... are you trying to say
> that the software package may require that it be linked only against
> DFSG-compliant libraries? If so, this is well beyond even the GPL's
> requirements (or else you couldn't run any GNU software on Unix
> implementations unless you linked it against GNU libc). Maybe I'm
> missing what you're trying to say here.
The GPL does restrict what licenses that can be used on third-party
libraries linked to the software. In order to link a library to GPLed
software, it must be distributable under a GPL-compatable license, or
it must be a system library normally distributed with the system.
This clause is saying that that is OK, but saying "distribute only with
other Open Source Software" is not OK.
How about:
The license can impose license restrictions on the third party
software (such as libraries) necessary for the operation of the
licensed software only as is needed so that the licenses are
compatable with each other.
The license may not impose license restrictions on third-party
software not necessary for the operation of the licensed software
that may merely reside on the same system or distribution as the
licensed software
>
> > 3.5. Availability of source code
> > ---------------------------------
> >
> > The license may require that a reasonable attempt be made to make the
> > source code available along with executables of the software. <Not
> > specificly part of the old DFSG>
>
> "along with"? How about "in addition to", to include the GPL's
> "separate source with reasonable copying fee" (paraphrasing here)
> exception. "along with" implies conjunction; "in addition to" doesn't
> carry that connotation. Or a separate sentence to specifically permit
> the GPL exception (e.g. This may include a requirement for the
> licensee to provide the source code for any executables for a
> reasonable copying fee.)
Do you feel that the clause, as stated, would make the GPL
nonDFSG-compatable?
--
Buddha Buck bmbuck@acsu.buffalo.edu
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects." -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
Reply to: