Re: GPL and WINE licence compatible?
David Starner <email@example.com> wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 10:21:45PM +0000, Colin Watson wrote:
>> I was about to ITP icoutils (http://www.student.lu.se/~nbi98oli/src/),
>> but I had a last-minute worry about the licence. It's mostly GPL, except
>> that some files in the source are distributed under the Wine licence.
>> Most of this seems to be OK (largely BSDish with no advertising clause),
>> but I'm concerned about section (3) of the first paragraph.
>I don't think it's an issue. I read (3) as being the same as THE LEGAL
>DISCLAMER IN ALL LICENSES THAT'S PRINTED LIKE THIS. I'm sort of worried
>about the second paragraph, but it should be acceptable.
OK. I couldn't remember if there was a standard interpretation of this
(I was thinking about an argument on this list back in July about a
similar clause, and about the meaning of "indemnify").
What worries you about the second paragraph? Is it the requirement to
display a notice about all changes?
>> The current version of Wine in Debian carries the X11 licence, so if
>> this turned out to be a problem then perhaps I could just create a new
>> source package with those newer include files instead (or, better, talk
>> to the upstream author about it).
>This would probably be the best idea, especially if the files could be
>replaced with a dependency on libwine-dev.
icoutils actually only uses the API definitions from those include
files; it doesn't link against libwine or use any real Wine code itself.
In those circumstances, I'd sort of agree that it's better to decouple
the build from libwine-dev and avoid having to needlessly follow Wine
The upstream author actually mailed me about this before I'd had time to
ask him if it was a problem, so it should be possible to sort out any
problems that do exist quite quickly.
Colin Watson [firstname.lastname@example.org]