Re: reiserfs-utils_3.5.19-1_i386.changes REJECTED (fwd)
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 08:09:42PM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> Andrew Lenharth <email@example.com> writes:
> > >From the copyright:
> > >| If you wish to integrate it with any other
> > >| software system which is not GPL'd, without integrating it into an
> > >| operating system kernel, then you must obtain an additional license.
> > >This makes this software non-free. If you disagree with this
> > >analysis, please take it up on firstname.lastname@example.org. Thanks.
> > >James
> > I don't agree. The GPL only allows integration with GPL products.
> Eh? No it doesn't. I can, for example, integrate GPLed code into a
> product with a MIT-style license without problems.
> I think I understand what the license is trying to say (that non-GPL
> licenses are available from the author, if you don't want to be bound
> by the terms of the GPL?), but the way it's currently worded is
> incredibly sloppy and fails the DFSG.
I think we need to see the whole license, because I think this was an
amendment to an amendment to the GPL - i.e. this takes it out of context.
I don't understand why you think this is non-free - even if you could only
link it with GPL'ed programs, both the GPL and QPL are free licenses with
restrictions on associated licenses like this. Which clause does it violate?
David Starner - email@example.com
"A dynamic character with an ability to survive certain death and
a questionable death scene leaving no corpse? Face it, we'll never
see her again." - Sluggy Freelance