RE: Steelblue license
On Tue, 31 Oct 2000, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote:
> > The question is, does the below meet the DFSG? Particularly since it
> > is:
> > 2. Requires you to give them the source (although it does say
> > "please" at the site listed, so "requires" may be a bit harsh).
>
> This is ok, it essentially states what the GPL implies, you have to release the
> source, and thus I can take it and put it into the upstream source, making your
> changes moot.
No, GPL says you have to make your mods available to whomever you gave
the mods to, not to upstream.
>
> > 3. Requires you to give them full rights to your mods (even sell
> > them, from what I read).
>
> bsd / gpl allow this as well
>
Definitely not, in the case of GPL. GPL is owned by whoever wrote the
code, unless they reassign. FSF insists on reassignment for FSF
projects, but xemacs came about from a split, and is NOT owned by FSF.
> > 4. Termination clause.
>
> It terminates if you violate it, not just because they say so.
How do they determine you violated it? Also, it requires you to destroy all copies, so
even you can't use it. I probably would have less of a problem with
it if they changed to something like the GPL - you have regular rights
to the product (as per copyright), and the GPL gives you some
additional. Violate the GPL, and they get you for copyright
violation, since nothing else gives you the right.
>
> > 5. Governed under Maryland law (UCITA) (although it makes sense as a
> > Maryland corp, but it is UCITA).
>
> This is ok, however it makes it not be GPL compatible.
>
> Usual, IANAL.
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffry Smith Technical Sales Consultant Mission Critical Linux
smith@missioncriticallinux.com phone:603.930.9739 fax:978.446.9470
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: