Re: Bug#140103: ITP: alliance -- VLSI CAD system
Andreas Bombe <bombe@informatik.tu-muenchen.de> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2002 at 05:54:08PM -0800, Walter Landry wrote:
> > In any case, they could write their own license which is basically the
> > GPL with this added restriction. That might even be DFSG-free, though
> > the use restriction makes it annoying. It would also be incompatible
> > with anything else under the GPL.
>
> It wouldn't be DFSG free, since the advertising is required for
> commercial users (violates DFSG 6, no discrimination against fields of
> endeavour).
The license seems to say that it is required for all users, not just
commercial ones. In any case, I'm not convinced that it would be
DFSG-free. I just can't think of any reason it wouldn't be.
> > Phrasing it as a request would be much more polite, and wouldn't
> > require surgery on the GPL. I don't know exactly what this software
> > does, but they could also have the software insert the phrase into the
> > output, much like Latex2HTML does.
>
> This is software to design hardware. So it is quite unclear how that
> requirement should be fulfilled.
>
> Mention in the docs? In advertisement? On the chip package? On the
> die?
I was thinking that it would go onto whatever the output of the
program is. Presumably that is then turned into a chip. The notice
would then end up on the die.
This wouldn't inform the end-user, but it would inform anyone who is
modifying the design. You're right, though, in that it is probably
not what the authors would like.
Regards,
Walter Landry
wlandry@ucsd.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: