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

Re: output message for "-version" option.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2001 at 08:50:30PM +0900, Taketoshi Sano wrote:
> I have a question about a software, which outputs the following
> message with "-version" option. Is this redistributable ?
> (the output of "<a command> -version")
>    There is NO warranty.  You may redistribute this software
>    under the terms of the GNU General Public License
>    and the XXX copyright.
>    For more information about these matters, see the files
>    named COPYING and the XXX source.
> where the license conditions in XXX copyright inculdes
>     - Use of the Software in any form is permitted provided that
>       it is not for profit-making
>         (e.g. collecting tolls for using the Software).
>     - Copy and redistribution of the Japanese translation of
>       the Software is permitted provided that it is not for 
>       commercial purpose
>     - Modification of a part of the the Software is permitted
>       provided that you notify the author of your modification.
>       You shall not release your modification to public without
>       prior approval of the author.
>       Redistribution of the modified version of the Software is
>       permitted provided that the receiver can easily restore it
>       to the original.
> I think these conditions conflicts GPL, and the output message
> of this command with "-version" option is problematic.
> As far as I know, the software itself does not includes GPL code.
> It just links to a LGPL library dinamically.
> I have not subscribed this list, so please cc: me when you follow this.
> I'll appreciate your comments and opinions. TIA.

Not only is this in conflict with the GPL, but these provisions make
the package non-free.  However, in view of the conflicting messages,
the only course of action is to get the owner of the copyright to
state what the actual licensing terms are.  
	sam th		     
	GnuPG Key:  

Attachment: pgpQvKbMY0ujW.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: