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

Re: [htdig-dev] Licensing issues...

On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 09:06:29PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 03:11:52PM -0600, Neal Richter wrote:
> > > 2) Can I reasonably argue that htdig is gpl (or lgpl) if its linked
> > > against a 3 or a 4 cloause BSD license? - htdig .3.1.6 builds static
> > > libraries (.a) it links against.
> > 
> >   Sure you can!
> > 
> >   Note that although the Free Software Foundation may say that a 4-clause
> > BSD license is incompatible with the GPL (and they do)..... that opinion only
> > applies to code that the FSF holds the copyright for.
> Not quite.  I believe that opinion derives directly from the text of the
> license.  The GPL prohibits adding further restrictions (GPL#6), and the
> 4-clause BSD license does so.  Unless a copyright holder specifically says
> that he considers the 4-clause BSD license consistent with the GPL, it's
> not safe for Debian to assume otherwise.
> That is, the "default" interpretation, lacking a statement from (all of)
> the copyright holders of a work, should be the one that follows from the
> license text, and that's the FSF's interpretation, at least in this case.

As a point of note, RMS has said that this interpretation is considered to
be a bug in the GPL, and that the FSF has no current intention of pursuing
violations of this, because it wasn't intended (they still, of course,
recommend going to a 3 or even 2 clause variant of the license).

I believe I still have the email somewhere in my archives if necessary, but
to date it hasn't been terribly relevant.
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>                                        ,''`.
Debian GNU/kNetBSD(i386) porter                                      : :' :
                                                                     `. `'
http://nienna.lightbearer.com/                                         `-

Attachment: pgp1ED9nwTruF.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: