Re: reiserfs-utils_3.5.19-1_i386.changes REJECTED (fwd)
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 08:09:42PM +0100, James Troup wrote:
> Andrew Lenharth <adl@cs.washington.edu> writes:
>
> > >From the copyright:
> > >| 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 makes this software non-free. If you disagree with this
> > >analysis, please take it up on debian-legal@lists.debian.org. Thanks.
> > >James
> >
> > I don't agree. The GPL only allows integration with GPL products.
>
> Eh? No it doesn't. I can, for example, integrate GPLed code into a
> product with a MIT-style license without problems.
>
> I think I understand what the license is trying to say (that non-GPL
> licenses are available from the author, if you don't want to be bound
> by the terms of the GPL?), but the way it's currently worded is
> incredibly sloppy and fails the DFSG.
I think we need to see the whole license, because I think this was an
amendment to an amendment to the GPL - i.e. this takes it out of context.
I don't understand why you think this is non-free - even if you could only
link it with GPL'ed programs, both the GPL and QPL are free licenses with
restrictions on associated licenses like this. Which clause does it violate?
--
David Starner - dstarner98@aasaa.ofe.org
http/ftp: x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu
"A dynamic character with an ability to survive certain death and
a questionable death scene leaving no corpse? Face it, we'll never
see her again." - Sluggy Freelance
Reply to: