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

Re: FreeVeracity shipment.

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    <ydirson@altern.org> |    Why make M$-Bill richer & richer ?
debian-email:   <dirson@debian.org> |   Support Debian GNU/Linux:
                                    | Cheaper, more Powerful, more Stable !
http://www.altern.org/ydirson/      | Check <http://www.debian.org/>

Reply to: