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

Open Compatibility License (was: Re: 2 questions about leocad)

On Sun, Sep 17, 2000 at 04:20:47PM -0500, Pat Mahoney wrote:
> 2)  The program itself is probably going to be released under the Open
> Compatibility License <http://www.gizmodrome.com/ocl_1_0_text.htm>.  I had
> not heard of this before, and a search of debian-legal turned up nothing.
> The FSF says it is has major drawbacks and is incompatible with the GPL. 
> Basically, it is a patchfile license.  Altered versions must be distributed
> as patchfiles to the original.  Patches must be OCL'd.
> The only problem I see is that it says "you must provide as part of your
> program an unaltered version of the software." Does distributing a
> debianized binary violate this?  The debianization of this particular
> program involves no source code modifications (at least it will when the
> author incorporates my small changes).  So, is this an "altered version"? 
> What if I had to make source changes?  Would distributing the binary but
> simply offering the source (through apt or whatever) satisfy this condition?
> I appreciate any comments...

The author (of leocad) asked me if the GPL required a program to be GPL'd if
it used, say, one line of code from a GPL'd program.  I told him I wasn't
sure, but I seem to recall RMS saying something about this with respect to
kghostview.  I believe he said that 10-15 lines didn't matter.  But, is this
legally correct?

Again, any thoughts on the Open Compatibility License (other than the fact
that it has the same abbrev. as the Open Content License)?

Pat Mahoney	<patmahoney@gmx.net>

But maybe good is more than the absence of bad.
                -- Hobbes in "Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson

Reply to: