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

Re: DFSG Par. 9 and GPL "Virulogical" effekt

On 22-Apr-00, 12:22 (CDT), Florian Lohoff <flo@rfc822.org> wrote: 
> 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.

It's been thought on several times by many people who know a lot more
about law than you or I.  Believe it or not, US law[1] does not forbid
the use of common sense and determination of intent when evaluating
contracts and licenses. A reading of the complete GPL, along with
RMS's other writings, not to mention the gigabytes of commentary and
clarification that have been written since the GPL's release make it
clear that GPL is intended to apply only to the licencsed software
itself and derived works. The definition of "derived work" is pretty
clear from copyright law. How that definition applies to software *is*
fuzzy (the whole shared library issue), but there is no question that it
might apply to independent works.

Likewise, the intent of the DFSG is clearly to allow the combined
distribution of independent works on the same media or from the same
(virtual) location, while preserving the right of those works to be
licensed as their author(s) choose. 

Reading the "contamination not allowed" clause and the GPL in the way
that you you keeping insisting in doing, after it has been explained
several times, is what is idiotic. The issue can't be clear if you won't


Reply to: