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

Re: Glide3 license

On Fri, Nov 19, 1999 at 02:41:33PM -0800, Joseph Carter wrote:
> The recent source release for the Voodoo3 cards includes two components
> which are MIT licensed and one part which is under Yet Another Public
> License(tm) which resembles the GPL and LGPL in several noticable ways.
> It's attached for your reading pleasure--or whatever.

Nothing attached but your pgp signature. :(

> The license seems DFSG compliant to me, but there are a couple of issues
> I'd like other opinions on.  How does the trademark issue affect us?  Do I
> need a "Glide is a trademark of 3dfx Interactive, Inc" in the package desc
> or do I have to rename the package or can I get an email from the right
> person telling me that it's fine if I call it glide and tack it to the end
> of the copyright and license info or is that getting to close to "licenses
> specific to Debian" or what?

I've not seen the license so this is very likely wrong, but what you're
describing sounds more analogous to a "rename if you make changes" clause
than the old "bsd advertising" clause.

> The license says that using the software means you accept the license.  Of
> course there are no usage restrictions in the license--only distribution
> restrictions, so I'm guessing this probably has to be a no-op anyway,
> regardless of the whole issue of whether or not a Copyright license
> actually could place restrictions on running software at all (which is
> covered by fair use IMO..)  The DFSG doesn't cover the issue.

Nor should it.  This clause of the license is bogus in the U.S. but maybe
it is meaningful in other countries.  In the U.S., using software is
legal (fair use) if you own a legal copy of it.

Personally, I think 3dfx should take the approach used by the GPL: you
don't have to accept the license if you don't want to, but nothing else
gives you the right to distribute the software.  [I imagine that this 
is what the lawyers would argue if it went to court, so it makes a lot
of sense for it to be written into the license.]

> Is my interpretation that this is a DFSG compliant license correct?
> Secondly, how does this license weigh in on the whole GPL compatibility
> issue?  I don't see any snags, does that mean there aren't any? (hope,
> hope)

Dunno.  Send us a copy of the license.


Reply to: