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

Re: reiserfs-utils_3.5.19-1_i386.changes REJECTED (fwd)

> > Frankly, I think license this only needs a one word change (instead of
> > "non-GPL", make it "non-GPLable" or "incompatible with GPL") to remove
> > all ambiguity.  However, we have every right to modify and redistribute
> > the kernel, should we deem it necessary.

On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 11:11:46PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> It doesn't matter either way. Even if it means "only GPL", it is still a
> free software license. Linux is GPL, so it can be shipped with our system.

Nope, because that clause would be incompatible with the GPL itself,
meaning that you have no rights to redistribute it.  Unless that clause
is taken to be a part of the license itself [because the clause was
provided by the original author of reiserfs].

But if you take this clause in that manner, you wind up with a piece of
GPLed software which doesn't meet the DFSG, and which can't be combined
with other GPLed software unless the authors of that other software
agrees to this weird license.

Which is silly and somewhat contradictory, I agree.

On the other hand, this ambiguity invites flamewars -- and for that
reason I think the language should be cleaned up.

> I would still recommend to look at the full license before a decision is
> made.

And I would still recommend a less ambiguous phrasing.


Reply to: