Re: Open Compatibility License (was: Re: 2 questions about leocad)
On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 11:44:06PM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 10:12:04PM -0500, Pat Mahoney wrote:
> > 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?
>
> I don't think anyone can make a case over one line.
Ok. Thanks.
>
> > Again, any thoughts on the Open Compatibility License (other than the
> > fact that it has the same abbrev. as the Open Content License)?
>
> It's ugly, but I think it's DFSG-free from my read-through. You might want
> to point out that "provided these projects are covered by a open-source
> license" is meaningless, as that license could be BSD, which would allow
> it to be taken propriatery. Better yet, if you can, get him to put it
> under a real license.
Ok, how about GPL with an added clause that you must "ask permission" from
the author to distribute modified versions? This opens the door to possible
discriminations, but not necessarily, so is it still DFSG?
I am betting that it is so close to the line as to push it over into
non-free.
I think a clause that required one to merely notify the author of modified
distribution would not violate the DFSG?
>
> --
> David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
> http/ftp: dvdeug.dhis.org
> And crawling, on the planet's face, some insects called the human race.
> Lost in space, lost in time, and meaning.
> -- RHPS
>
--
Pat Mahoney <patmahoney@gmx.net>
For children with short attention spans: boomerangs that don't come back.
Reply to: