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

Re: upx under GPL

On Sat, Mar 10, 2001 at 06:25:34PM +0100, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> #include <hallo.h>
> Sam Hartman wrote on Sat Mar 10, 2001 um 10:50:37AM:
> > You may force yourself into the GPL without additional permissions
> > solution if you have to modify the software to Debianize it.
> That is not my problem. The package was rejected because of:
> |This package isn't under just the GPL as the copyright file says, but
> |the GPL plus some very important exceptions.
> |
> |-- 
> |James
> I would like to distribute the package with this license.  I still could
> do it, since the authors give their extra permissions as long as the
> program is compiled from completely unmodified source (and this should
> not be a problem, the source is good and don't need modification for
> packages). And the authors are allowed to do this permissions, they
> wrote the complete source and have the whole copyright on it. 
> I wish a statement from James why the extra permissions make the package
> unsuitable for Debian main.

The package is defintely DFSG-free.  The only significant question
that I have about it concerns the annotations.  The first annotation
states that only GPL'ed software may be compressed (and distributed)
by a modified binary.  However, this is an incorrect interpretation of
the rest of the license, which would permit GPL-compatible programs as
well (X license, LGPL, etc).  It looks like the annotations are just
commentary, and have no real impact, but you might want to check up on

Even if the annotations did add additional restrictions, the license
is still acceptable.  
sam th --- sam@uchicago.edu --- http://www.abisource.com/~sam/
OpenPGP Key: CABD33FC --- http://samth.dyndns.org/key
DeCSS: http://samth.dynds.org/decss

Attachment: pgpHwOhmQL6zQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: