Re: Intent to package xmemos

[Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>]

David Starner wrote:

> Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> > Darren Benham wrote:
> > > The most recent version of Lyx had a license change (I am told) for the
> > > very same reason.
> > 
> > No. The current version has had a _clarification_ added, but is
> > still very much GPLed (without additional clauses).  See the
> > Debian package or http://www.lyx.org/license.html
> 
> I do see. But it's not GPL'ed. The clarification makes that very clear,
> IMO. The clarification is an addendum to the license and changes the
> terms of the license ("The terms of the GPL apply save where they
> conflict with this statement.")

I disagree.  They explicitely state that they have always used
the GPL, and that, legally, any clause that are inapplicable are
rejected, whether they add a clarification paragraph or not.

As they say: `This is *not* a change of license, but a
clarification of the license that LyX has always used.'

>                                        If the author changes xwatch's
> license in the same way that lyx's was changed, then Debian should be
> satisfied. Better yet, if there is only one author, change the license
> to LGPL or MPL or something else.

I'm happy to wait for the dust to settle and for a concensus to
be reached on what the best GPL add-on statement would be.  I
don't want to request a change of license more than once, and I
think clarity would benefit everyone.

Peter