Re: AW: Licesing question regarding a new package named isdn2h323
>>>>> "Budde," == Budde, Marco <budde@telos.de> writes:
>> Specifically, the additional notices are additional
>> restrictions that you've added to the license.
Budde,> Additional restrictions? We simply clarify how to read
Budde,> GPL's paragraph about copyright notices.
Reading your license text , it didn't seem that is what you v were doing. Let me contrast two ways of stating roughly what you want:
1) This software can be distributed under the terms of the GPL. You
must include notices in the following places.
2) This software must be distributed under the terms of the GPL.
It's my belief as author that to comply with the paragraph about
interactive notices, you need to keep the copyright notices in
the following places, but if I should be wrong then it is the
terms of the GPL that control, not this clarification.
The first paragraph establishes an additional restriction. You as
author don't get to assert clarifications and bind the person
licensing your code to that clarification. Doing so creates a
different license. If you were allowed to "clarify" the GPL in a
binding manner, then other people should similarly be allowed to
"clarify" the GPL. What happens when we try to combine two sets of
code with different incompatible clarifications? We find ourselves in
the ridiculous position of having two chunks of code both licensed
under the GPL that cannot be combined. We run into similar problems
if you make an incorrect clarification--for examply clarifying away
your obligation to give out source code.
The second paragraph, where you're providing a non-binding
clarification is fine. There, you're providing people distributing
your software information; you believe you are right, but you make it
clear that the software is only licensed under the unmodified GPL and
that users should evaluate your clarification as information on how
the GPL should be read when considering any work, including your own.
If a case comes to court, you will need to justify that your
clarification is a valid reading of the GPL. If I want to ignore your
clarification because I believe you do not understand the GPL
correctly, I can do so; you always have the option of bringing suit
against me if you believe that my understanding of the GPL and my
actions based on that understanding violate the license.
So, in summary, you need to actually provide clarifications if that's
what you want, not additional license restrictions.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: