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

Re: hx should be removed from the distribution unless copyright is clarified



On Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 07:24:23PM -0800, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> He said that hx was no not under any
> license, and he thought that software licensing was stupid and he did
> not care about it. He has not been willing to change the license to
> something such as the BSD license, which would allow modification. A
> good summary of US copyright relating to unlicensed programs is at
> http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html, and it basically says that rights to
> run or modify the software, but not distribute patches to it. This might
> be acceptable for non-free, except that debian packaging is basically
> a patch. I think the same issues apply for qmail, but do not know what
> descision was arrived at with that particular package.

It's come to my attention that Hx uses code from the Readline library
which is covered by the GNU GPL. Does this make Hx implicitly GPL, or
is it a violation of the GPL if Hx does not explicitly state that it
is licensed under the GPL?

Attachment: pgp9VvGVAm0KF.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: