Re: 6 GPL'ed Packages that depend on XForms.
Raul Miller wrote:
> Brian Ristuccia <brianr@osiris.978.org> wrote:
> > > > 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 complete
> > > > source code for this program does not include the xforms library
> > > > (Copyright (c) by T.C. Zhao and Mark Overmars). 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.
> I'm not sure why you're asking this, why you think that the above
> clause solves anything...
>
> (a) xforms has restrictions on distribution which mean that it can't
> be distributed as part of a GPLed program.
>
> (b) the above clause just re-states that xforms isn't a part of
> the program.
I thought that linking with XForms made XForms `part of the
program', which is the problem. The clause was a way to ignore
that part of the code (that links with XForms) as far as the GPL
is concerned.
> Perhaps Brian was thinking of qualifying for the special exception
> for non-free operating systems
I think the point was to avoid using that clause.
> > Any suggestions? I'd like to sort this out once and for all (See my
> > debian-legal post `6 GPL'ed Packages that depend on XForms') with
> > debian-legal's help.
>
> I've seen some good suggestions on this list. Without knowing why
> those aren't acceptable, I'm not sure what else to suggest.
I'm sorry, but all the suggestions I've seen as added clauses to
the GPL have been criticized by someone. The one sited here was
the most promising (I thought) until your criticism.
Did I miss valid suggestions? I would be very happy to have
something to suggest for the 7 affected pacakged in potato.
Thanks,
Peter
Reply to: