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

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?
> Ciao,
> 	Martin
> [ Please Cc: me on answers, I am not subscribed ]


Reply to: