Re: XForms GPL exception...
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>
> Tom Lear wrote:
>
> > I'm writing the author of xfmix to request an exception for xforms, but
> > I'm not clear on a point of our suggested exception.
> >
> > + 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 separate license
> > + to do so from the owner(s) of the copyright for XForms, however). 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.
> >
> > "(You still need a separate license to do so from the owner(s) of the
> > copyright for XForms, however)" seems to me to say that you need a
> > separate license from the xforms people to distribute the binary
> > regardless of the exception. Is that right? That would mean that we need
> > a separate license from the xforms people.
> > - Tom
>
> Anyone can feel free to correct me on this... Now's the time to
> do it!
>
> I interpret that sentence as clarifying the point that the binary
> is linked to a library, and thus we need `permission' to
> distribute the part of the binary that is XForms code. We have
> that permissiom from the XForms license:
Well I think that sentence confuses things, specifically the word
"separate" which to me implies separate from the licence that xforms is
distributed under. Maybe somthing like "(You already have permission to
distribute the binary form of xforms from the xforms licence)". But I
think I'd prefer the line be removed entirely.
- Tom
PS: Please cc me, I'm not subscribed.
Reply to: