Re: GPL link against non-free in original work (Re: Isn't a kde version..)
John Hasler wrote:
> > Would adding the email from the copyright holder be enough of a
> > clarification?
>
> Perhaps. Can we see the email?
It's a bunch of separate emails, some even asking me to take up
complete maintainership of the first package (xwatch) and saying I
can edit the license to whatever I want since he'd give my the
copyright anyway. But later on we did discuss changing the
license for all three affected packages. I guess I can boil it
down to two crucial emails, once requesting a license change, and
his reply to a later email with a small tweak to the GPL+XForms
clause:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter S Galbraith <psg@debian.org>
To: "Kubat, Karel" <k.kubat@roccadefinance.nl>
cc: Peter S Galbraith <psg@debian.org>
Subject: xwatch, xplot and xcolmix Debian packages
Date: Tue, 06 Apr 1999 12:50:18 -0400
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hi Karel,
Someone finally decided that the GPL license is incompatible with
compiling with the XForms library, and filled a bug report
against the xwatch Debian package. Whether that person is right
or not, a simple license clarification clears it op anyway.
I'd like to change the license (currently GPL) like this:
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your
option) any later version. Additionally, you are granted permission to
assume, for the purposes of distributing this program in object code or
executable form under Section 3 of the GNU General Public License, that
the XForms library (Copyright (c) by T.C. Zhao and Mark Overmars)
is normally distributed with the major components of the
operating system on which the executable or object code runs.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
I'd be adding th part `Additionally, ... object code runs.' which
clarifies that the intent was always to link with XForms.
Do you agree with this change?
If you have PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) installed, you could even
sign your reply message to assure it's authenticity (that I'm not
forging it!) like I did with this message.
Thanks!
Peter
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3ia
Charset: noconv
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.4, an Emacs/PGP interface
iQCVAwUBNwo7QrwVH8jSqROhAQEZJQP/SnjIl4ITE7XmDJPl25f+UJtPDznZiBVx
mryrAYeDrlEzHwyuMgRkZkgIy/uPO54+IQsS1U3YGT2LqzPIiDswb0ZZq94H2jqx
WkApiNFK/kv/k6AU+1AWeWBiPb2SnXUS0G5n2DxC/drwPGeYAVJVNdOCKNc7wgHW
m1zPk0J7ABw=
=7g8+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return-Path: k.kubat@roccadefinance.nl
Delivery-Date: Thu Apr 8 03:01:41 1999
Return-Path: <k.kubat@roccadefinance.nl>
Received: from mixing.qc.dfo.ca (root@mixing.qc.dfo.ca [142.130.48.235])
by mixing.qc.dfo.ca (8.9.3/8.8.5) with ESMTP id DAA24297
for <galbraith@mixing.qc.dfo.ca>; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 03:01:41 -0400
Received: from lauimls05.qc.dfo.ca
by mixing.qc.dfo.ca (fetchmail-4.3.9 POP3)
for <galbraith/mixing.qc.dfo.ca> (single-drop); Thu, 08 Apr 1999 03:01:41 EDT
Received: from 142.130.21.130 by msg6.dfo-mpo.gc.ca with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.0.1460.8)
id 2PGZJJPK; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 03:01:19 -0400
Received: from winnt_mailexch.dpfinance.nl ([150.150.2.4]) by gateway.dpfinance.nl with ESMTP id <19714>; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 08:38:29 +0100
Received: by WINNT_MAILEXCH with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
id <2NAMN3VH>; Thu, 8 Apr 1999 09:00:21 +0200
Message-ID: <DDA85E014826D2118BE30000F6B276B37DC35F@WINNT_MAILEXCH>
From: "Kubat, Karel" <k.kubat@roccadefinance.nl>
To: "'Peter S Galbraith'" <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>
Subject: RE: License change for cwatch, xplot and xcolmix
Date: Thu, 8 Apr 1999 08:00:20 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Sounds pretty good!!!!
Cheers, Karel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter S Galbraith [mailto:GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca]
> Sent: woensdag 7 april 1999 16:27
> To: Kubat, Karel; karel@icce.rug.nl
> Cc: Peter S Galbraith
> Subject: License change for cwatch, xplot and xcolmix
>
>
>
> Hi Karel,
>
> Sorry for bothering you, but here's the latest clarified license
> suggested:
>
>
> This program is free software; you can redistribute it
> and/or modify it
> under the terms of the GNU General Public License as
> published by the
> Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the
> License, or (at your
> option) any later version.
>
> 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 xforms library
> (Copyright (c)
> by T.C. Zhao and Mark Overmars) is normally distributed
> with the major
> components of the operating system on which the
> executable or object
> code runs. 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.
>
> This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
> GNU General Public License for more details.
>
> You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
> Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA
> 02111-1307 USA
>
> Peter
>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Problems:
1- I mispelled xwatch as cwatch in the second message.
2- The message he replied to means little taken out of context.
3- He didn't pgp-sign his reply.
However, I'm confident he would sue us if that makes a
difference?
I have about 100 other emails exchanged with him, so it's all a
bit of a mess.
Peter
Reply to: