Re: 6 GPL'ed Packages that depend on XForms.
Brian Ristuccia <brianr@osiris.978.org> wrote:
> > > You may, at your option and for the purposes of distributing
> > > this program in object code or executable form under Section
> > > 3 of the GNU General Public License, assume that the complete
> > > source code for this program does not include the xforms library
> > > (Copyright (c) by T.C. Zhao and Mark Overmars). If you choose not
> > > to excercise this option, you may distribute this software only
> > > under the terms of the GNU General Public License and may remove
> > > this paragraph.
Raul Miller wrote:
> > Still needs more work: this implies that you can't distribute
> > something compiled against xforms with this clause.
Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> wrote:
> How so?
I'm not sure why you're asking this, why you think that the above
clause solves anything...
(a) xforms has restrictions on distribution which mean that it can't
be distributed as part of a GPLed program.
(b) the above clause just re-states that xforms isn't a part of
the program.
Perhaps Brian was thinking of qualifying for the special exception
for non-free operating systems -- which was designed to let people
install GPLed software on a non-free operating system, but not let the
distributor of that non-free operating system include the GPLed software
till they fixed the license. If so it's not clear whether he wants
Debian to adopt the position of the distributor of the non-free OS, or
if he wants Debian to adopt the position of the add-on GPLed software
distributor... either way though this clause doesn't solve the problem
of distributing them together.
> Any suggestions? I'd like to sort this out once and for all (See my
> debian-legal post `6 GPL'ed Packages that depend on XForms') with
> debian-legal's help.
I've seen some good suggestions on this list. Without knowing why
those aren't acceptable, I'm not sure what else to suggest.
--
Raul
Reply to: