Re: apache non-free?
On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, Jules Bean wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 10:37:14AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Dec 2001, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > Come on, it's not a "derivative", it's a patched version. A derivative
> > > is if you use portions of it to create a new version, or turn it into a
> > > "different product" (e.g. fork it).
> > >
> > > Adding some patches is not a derivative.
> > IANAL, so could you give me a link to somewhere where a lawyer says that
> > with this interpretation there is no legal risk for us in any country?
> Now that *is* ridiculous.
> We are in no legal risk in any country because, quite clearly, the
> Apache Group are the only people who could file a suit, and they're
> patently not going to.
> The question here is about doing the right thing, it's not about real
> legal risk.
Please read again what Ben said:
"Adding some patches is not a derivative."
This is more general than the apache case where it seems that the apache
people make an exception for us so that we are allowed to patch the apache
sources (although it isn't mentioned in debian/copyright) - IMHO it's not
ridiculous to ask about the legal differences between "derivative" and "a
patched version" - you have the same problem with other packages as well.
But there are cases where this problem doesn't arise because it's more
- the copyright of abiword says "Modified versions of AbiWord may not be
distributed using the AbiWord name without permission from AbiSource,
Inc." so if there's no permission (it's not mentioned in
debian/copyright) it's in this case clear that our patch of the source
violates the copyright
or more simple
- Copying of this file is authorized only if
(1) you are D. E. Knuth, or if
(2) you make absolutely no changes to your copy.
[it's stated in other places that you are allowed to change this file
when you rename it]
Get my GPG key: finger email@example.com | gpg --import
Fingerprint: B29C E71E FE19 6755 5C8A 84D4 99FC EA98 4F12 B400