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

Re: One unclear point in the Vim license

Scripsit Glenn Maynard <g_dlegal@zewt.org>
> On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 11:55:20AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:

[warning to the innocent reader: this quote is a *proposed* licence
wording that does not actually apply to Vim, as far as I know]

> >   You are allowed to distribute a modified version of Vim when either of
> >   the following conditions are met:
> >   1) You make your changes to the source code available to the general
> >      public, or to those to whom you distributed modified versions of
> >      Vim, with no restrictions on use, copying, modification, or
> >      distribution; or
> >   2) You make your changes to the source code available to the Vim
> >      maintainer at no charge, and grant him or her a perpertual license
> >      to use, copy, modify and distribute your changes without
> >      restriction.  The preferred way to do this is by e-mail or by
> >      uploading the files to a server and e-mailing the URL.  If the
> >      number of changes is small (e.g., a modified Makefile) e-mailing
> >      the diffs will do.  The e-mail address to be used is
> >      <maintainer@vim.org>.

> Would this kind of offer be GPL-compliant?

Yes (assuming that you mean "GPL-comptaible").

> It seems that one choice is and one choice isn't; I'm not sure what
> the implications are.

Essentially, everybody who copies with the combined work must comply
with both the GPL and the proposed license. Since the proposed license
(with both of the options open) does not forbid distribution in cases
where the GPL allows it, the GPL's self-defence clauses does not fire,
and so the compound *can* be distributed.

As long as the compound is still treated as a compound, people
effectively cannot *use* the second options of disclosing sourse to
the Vim author instead of to the users, but it would still be present
for somebody who distributed the Vim part without the GPL'ed library.

> I don't know how it works when there are compatible and incompatible
> options.

Note tha Branden's language does not require people to choose between
the options; it simply gives permission do distribute modified
binaries in a class of circumstances that, for editorial reasons, is
described as a disjunction.

Henning Makholm                           "Nobody is going to start shouting
                                       about moral philosophy on my bridge."

Reply to: