Re: reiserfs-utils_3.5.19-1_i386.changes REJECTED (fwd)
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 02:44:45PM -0700, Andrew Lenharth wrote:
> The whole point of the EXCERPT of the paragraph from the licenses is a
> clarification to an ambiguous phrasing of one of the points in the GPL.
I don't see that it clears up any ambiguities.
> Without further ado, the actual full thing:
> +[LICENSE] ReiserFS is hereby licensed under the GNU General
> +Public License version 2. Please see the file "COPYING"
> +which should have accompanied this software distribution for
> +details of that license.
> +Since that license (particularly 2.b) is necessarily vague in certain
> +areas due to its generality, the following interpretations shall govern.
I don't see anything vauge in 2b.
> +Some may consider these terms to be a supplemental license to the GPL.
> +You may include ReiserFS in a Linux kernel which you may then include
> +with anything, and you may even include it with a Linux kernel with
> +non-GPL'd kernel modules. You may include it in any kernel which is
> +wholly GPL'd including its kernel modules which you may then include
> +with anything. If you wish to use it for a kernel which you sell usage
> +or copying licenses for, which is not listed above, then you must obtain
> +an additional license.
Selling the license isn't what would make something incompatible with
the GPL. Having terms on the license which would deny people who bought
a copy from you all the priviledges of the GPL would make it incompatible
with the GPL.
The GPL allows for commercial distribution. It's just that the GPL
also allows for commercial competition, which places some practical
limits on prices. [These practical limits are very different from
legal restraint, however.]
> +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 very definitely conflicts with section 6 of the GPL. You've
indicated that it doesn't mean what it says, but insteads means something
like "...which is not GPL compatible, ..". But if that's the case it
should be rephrased.
> +This is an interpretation of what is and is not part of the software
> +program falling under the GPL section 2.b., and is intended as a
> +specification of (with a slight supplement to), not an exception to,
> +the GPL as applied to this particular piece of software.
I don't see that this clears up any such issues. All it does in that
direction is introduce new phrases (like "integrate it with"), without
bothering with clear definitions.
> +Further licensing options are available for commercial and/or other
> +interests directly from Hans Reiser: email@example.com. If you
> +interpret the GPL as not allowing those additional licensing options,
> +you read it wrongly, when carefully read you can see that those
> +restrictions on additional terms do not apply to the owner of the
> +copyright, and my interpretation of this shall govern for this license.
Additional licensing options are fine. What's not fine are restrictions
on what you can already do with GPLed code.