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

Re: Bug#140103: ITP: alliance -- VLSI CAD system



Andreas, debian-legal:

On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 03:21:01AM +0200, Andreas Bombe wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 11:26:19PM -0500, Chris Ruffin wrote:
> > Package: wnpp
> > Version: N/A; reported 2002-03-26
> > Severity: wishlist
> > 
> > * Package name    : alliance
> >   Version         : 4.0.6, 4.9.4
> >   Upstream Author : alliance-support@asim.lip6.fr
> > * URL             : http://www-asim.lip6.fr/alliance/
> > * License         : GPL
> 
> >From file LICENCE:
> 
> | Alliance  is  freely  available  under  the terms  of  the  GNU  General                            
> | Public License.  Please read the files  COPYING-2.0 and COPYING.LIB-2.0.                            
> | (More  info at  http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/)  Alliance binaries,  cells                            
> | libraries, documentation and source code are covered by GPL, except some                            
> | Alliance's base libraries which are LGPL.                                                           
> |                                                                                                     
> | You are welcome to use the software package even for commercial designs                             
> | without any fee. You are just required to mention :                                                 
> |                                                                                                     
> | "Designed with Alliance CAD system,  Copyright (C) 1991, 2000 Université                            
> |                          Pierre et Marie Curie"                                                     
>  
> The same can be found on the web page.  Before you upload it you'll have
> to sort out this self-contradicting license with that university.  The
> advertising requirement has to be removed without replacement, otherwise
> they shouldn't be bragging about it being GPL because it isn't.
> 

I was a little concerned about that as well, but my (uninformed and
possibly incorrect) conclusion was that this contradiction in their
licensing text was a dispute between the developers of the software
and the author of the GPL.  AFAIK the addition of the requirement to
mention the BSD-style acclamation doesn't violate anything in the
DFSG, and to my knowledge doesn't invalidate the GPL.  After all the
BSD license meets the DFSG.  Is it really up to us to resolve this?
--
Chris Ruffin <cmruffin@debian.org>

Attachment: pgpP4PLdqlKbH.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: