Please respect my mail headers:
Mail-Copies-To: nobody
X-No-CC: I subscribe to this list; do not CC me on replies.
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 03:57:36PM -0700, Mark Rafn wrote:
> What? This seems an odd position - apt can go into main with a license
> that would keep KDE out?
As strange as it seems, yes; someone else's package can render your own
un-redistributable. That is a property of the GNU GPL.
> > Apt got a sunset clause as a generous move to help somebodye ELSE out
> > with THEIR license problem. Do you perceive that as illegitimate, or as
> > rendering apt non-DFSG-free?
>
> I'm afraid I haven't read the apt license. Could you summarize the sunset
> clause in it?
Do you read this mailing this? I just posted it today.
Also, what is so difficult about typing "pager
/usr/share/doc/apt/copyright"?
> "rendering apt non-DFSG-free" is not what anyone is claiming. "failing to
> make Debian's packaging of apt DFSG-free" is how I might phrase it. I'd
> certainly not claim that a sunset clause makes something unfree. I DO
> claim that such a clause makes it as free as the intersection of the
> licenses rather than the union of them.
Only one license applies to APT; the GNU GPL.
> > If not, then perhaps we have found a dividing line that distinguishes
> > acceptable uses of sunset clauses from unacceptable ones.
>
> I propose this line: If our packaging (aka derived work including any
> linking we do) is DFSG-free both before and after the sunset, then we
> accept it into main.
That describes apt perfectly. It does not describe KDE back before Qt
was GPL'ed, and it does not describe, e.g., nessus today.
> My concern is to prevent us creating a Debian release that is
> non-distributable after some future date.
I agree and share this goal, however you seem to be overlooking an
important distinction:
GPL'ed application A
/\
/ \
/ \
/ \
GPL'ed library B GPL-incompatible library C
A license addition to B that grants permission for usage with C, even
with a sunset clause, does not impact the re-distributability of B. It
does impact the distributability of A.
A license addition to A is necessary for it to be distributable at all,
because it is GPL'ed and links against C. Any GPL'ed libraries like B
against which A links will also require additional grants of permission
for A to link with C. Again, regardless of whether A links against B or
not, A is going to require a license addition to link against C, because
A is GPL'ed and C is not GPL-compatible. The licensing of A under the
GPL is therefore not sufficient for A to be redistributable in binary
form, and so a license addition is necessary. If there is a sunset
clause A's license addition, then it can render itself unredistributable
at some future date. This is not true of B.
I therefore agree with your premise, but not your conclusion: if a
Debian package is DFSG-free regardless of whether certain time-limited
portions of its license are in force, then the package is DFSG-free.
However, apt's sunset clause was and is not illegitimate, because apt
was just as DFSG free on November 14, 2000, as it was on November 16,
2000.
--
G. Branden Robinson | No math genius, eh? Then perhaps
Debian GNU/Linux | you could explain to me where you
branden@debian.org | got these... PENROSE TILES!
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Stephen R. Notley
Attachment:
pgpWvlTjX6XZB.pgp
Description: PGP signature