Re: FreeVeracity shipment.
- To: "Ross N. Williams" <email@example.com>
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, Richard Braakman <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: FreeVeracity shipment.
- From: Yann Dirson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 00:25:11 +0100 (CET)
- Message-id: <email@example.com>
- In-reply-to: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
Ross N. Williams writes:
> Maybe I could make it trigger the moment you first use/compile/interact
> with the software.
Looks like a better alternative.
> >* distribution of binaries compiled from the sources is not
> >explicitely allowed, and thus, under copyright law, are most probably
> >not allowed except for a separate permission.
> Well, it would be nice if it was more explicit, but I think the
> following two clauses cover this clearly enough:
I suppose you mean the compiled binaries can be seen as something in
nature similar to "a work based on the Module" or a "modification" ?
Well... that looks like a valid point of view - I'd think
"modification" is the more accurate in this case, though.
> >* 4.6 makes it unclear whether eg. the Debian non-free dist ("the
> >whole") has to fall under this licence - the "separate works" notion
> >here is not obvious: although packages may be installed independently,
> >they form a whole, and the existence of the "Packages" index file used
> >by the packaging system may talk _against_ parts being separate works
> >- esp, the 4.7 section does not seem (to me) to apply to non-free.
> 4.6 and 4.7 are straight from the GNU GPL.
Ah. So I guess it's OK - again, IANAL :}
So it seems (to me) the licence is OK for non-free - uploading.
Yann Dirson <firstname.lastname@example.org> | Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ?
debian-email: <email@example.com> | Support Debian GNU/Linux:
| Cheaper, more Powerful, more Stable !
http://www.altern.org/ydirson/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/>