Re: XForms GPL exception...
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> Off the debian-legal list now...
>
> Tom Lear wrote:
>
> > Well I think that sentence confuses things, specifically the word
> > "separate" which to me implies separate from the licence that xforms is
> > distributed under. Maybe somthing like "(You already have permission to
> > distribute the binary form of xforms from the xforms licence)". But I
> > think I'd prefer the line be removed entirely.
>
> Perhaps. I'd rather someone else than me post a response,
> perhaps even the person who suggested the added line. You might
> also want to look up the thread below in the debian-legal mailing
> list archive.
>
> Peter
>
> --------------------------
> To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
> Subject: Re: 6 GPL'ed Packages that depend on XForms.
> From: Henning Makholm <henning@makholm.net>
> Date: 07 Jun 1999 20:18:30 +0200
[ snip ]
> Also I think it would be a good thing (even if not strictly
> required by law) to spell out explicitly that you are not
> purporting to relicense XForms itself.
Okay, I get it now. I'd suggest something like "(the XForms licence still
applies to the xforms portions of the binary)". Just as long as it
doesn't imply that you need to get some permission from the xforms people
that the xforms licence hasn't already granted you.
- Tom
Reply to: