Re: xforms exception for xmysqladmin needed?
"Martin Bialasinski" wrote:
> I want to take xmysqladmin from Brian Almeida. There is a open bug,
> that the license needs the xforms exception.
> The license is:
> I reserve the copyright to xMySQLadmin. However, you are permitted
> to use and distribute xMySQLadmin, provided that you
> (a) distribute it with the full sources, and
> (b) that you leave this documentation and
> copyright notice intact.
> The bugreport says:
> > We don't distribute with full source, so we're not allowed to
> > distribute it?
> > However picks up this package should try to obtain the same
> > license change as xmysql, or package the source separately
> > as done with the tetex-src package.
> > Thanks,
> > Peter Galbraith
> I do not agree on the point that "full sources" also includes the
> source of the widgetset it uses.
That's not what I meant. I meant that we ship a binary-only
package that does not contain sources. TeTeX has binaries with
such a license saying that we must also ship sources, and
that requirement is met with the tetex-src package. See:
Now that I think of it some more, the xmysqladmin license says
that we must distribute it _with_ source (meaning that sources
must accompany the binary?) so it sounds like you might need a
/usr/doc/xmysqladmin/src directory tree to comply.
The alternative, as I said in the bug report, is to seek a
license change. One such license that the upstream author might
agree with is GPL plus an XForms exemption clause, similar to
other GPL'ed XForms packages:
You may link this software with XForms (Copyright (C) by
T.C. Zhao and Mark Overmars) and distribute the resulting
binary, under the restrictions in clause 3 of the GPL, even
though the resulting binary is not, as a whole, covered by the
GPL. (You still need a license to do so from the owner(s) of the
copyright for XForms; see the XForms copyright statement). If a
derivative no longer requires XForms, you may use the
unsupplemented GPL as its license by deleting this paragraph and
therefore removing this exemption for XForms.
> Could you tell me who is right on this?
Do you not agree that we are breaking the license with a
binary-only package? Perhaps my interpretation is wrong?
> [ Please Cc: me on answers, I am not subscribed ]