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

Re: 6 GPL'ed Packages that depend on XForms.



On Fri, Jun 04, 1999 at 11:39:51AM -0400, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> 
> 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.
>

Don't use my clause for xforms -- it doesn't completely fix the problem. 

Any clause you add that will permit the use of xforms effectively enough for
Debian to distribute it will probably open up the main program for
exploitation. In this case, the best way to really fix the problem (instead
of just pasting over it) is to use fltk.

The only useful part of my clause was the following: "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." which I
think should be a part of any paragraph that ammends the GNU GPL.

--
Brian Ristuccia
brianr@osiris.978.org
bristucc@nortelnetworks.com
bristucc@cs.uml.edu


Reply to: