Re: DFSG Par. 9 and GPL "Virulogical" effekt
On Sat, Apr 22, 2000 at 10:01:54AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > The problem already stated in another
> > mail the problem i had/have with Par.9 is that it doesnt contain
> > a specification/definition under which relations a contamination
> > would be legal/illegal.
>
> It does. "Other software" is the key word. The GPL _NEVER_ _EVEN_
> _CONSIDERS_ the license of Qt until such time as you try to combine it
> with the GPL'd code. At that time the GPL says you may not do it with
> THIS software covered by the GPL. Never does the GPL tell you that Qt
> can't be licensed under Troll Tech's license. All it says is that IF you
> wish to use Qt with the GPL'd program that Qt's license must be
> compatible. It's not, so you can't.
Par 9 doesnt say the License needs to explecitly exclude software - It
says contamination in the sense of "restriction" which the GPL
license enforcement means to me (in some sense).
> This is not contamination of other software, it's contamination of the
> GPL'd software. Whether or not this is acceptable to you is your business
> but it does NOT fail the DFSG. This has been reiterated at least four
> times to you in this thread. All you're doing is repeating yourself.
> "This software is is under my arbitrary licence with these conditions
> [...] Distribution of this software means you agree to my terms, and that
> all software you distribute on the same CD is available to me under the
> same terms."
>
> That'd pretty easily fail the DFSG. The GPL doesn't say anything like
> that however and doesn't fail the DFSG.
This is an "example" of an restriction like the Par 9 also contains.
> > IMHO the "distributed along" term does not clear the tightness/intense
> > of the coupling (As none of the Programs debian distributes is unrelated
> > to others - The relation COULD be the same medium)
>
> You're NEVER going to find a wording which suits everyone.
Thats ok - But i am just trying to show that there is space
for misinterpretation of the Par 9
Again: Show me ANY term in the paragraph 9 which shows clearly what
type of restriction is meant and what exact relations the two
programs may have for a (il)"legal contamination".
There is none IMHO - Is doesnt state which relations the two programs
(the one which gets contaminated and the ones license is contaminating)
are standing to each other (The example says "same media") and under
which circumstances this is "legal" in the meanings of "we accept
the license but prevent it from getting contaminating" in the meaning
we dont distribute software not the same license and linked against.
The relation might be from "on earth", "on same spindle", "same filesystem",
"same archive", "same ftp server", "same directory", "compiled with
same compiler" etc - All these are inacceptable as a "contamination"
clause and its clearly to be not allowed after DFSG in the common
sense of Par 9. But: There might be clauses like "distributed
under the terms of this license" which is definitly a restriction
to another program and though matches the contaminaton clause.
Am just saying: "Hey - i see space for misinterpretation" and from
my discussion on #debian.de nobody could clear this up and so i am
asking here - And still - I dont see the issue cleared. It sounds
completely idiotic the GPL not compatible with DFSG but think
on it.
Flo
BTW: I like the GPL and think the "virulogic clause" was the beginning
of Open Source and the broad use today - But its still a restriction.
--
Florian Lohoff flo@rfc822.org +49-subject-2-change
"Technology is a constant battle between manufacturers producing bigger and
more idiot-proof systems and nature producing bigger and better idiots."
Reply to: