Re: BSD & GPL / deb with 2 licenses?
The BSD Daemon is under the license at
http://www.mckusick.com/beastie/mainpage/copyright.html
The big problem there is that the grant is only to individuals for
personal use. I'd assume that any other use has to be negotiated with
McKusick himself. DFSG free? I can't feature any scenario in which it
would be: the main license discriminates against groups, and any other
licensing would be Debian-specific.
On Sat, 14 Sep 2002, Rene Engelhard wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I am the maintainer of the muttprint package.
>
>I heard from upstream that the FreeBSD port folks do have the BSD
>Daemon as logo for muttprint and ship in in their port.
>I want it to include in muttprint package for those using them on the
>*BSD ports if they want to...
>
>Upstream told me that he is not allowed to distribute it in this
>original tarball because BSD vs. GPL. Is that right (muttprint is
>under GPL).
>
>So, I want to know if upstream's thoughts are right and it is
>forbidden to add the Daemon?
>
>And what's with the deb? Am I allowed to put the eps [1] or the patch
>creating it[2] in if I have in the copyright file something like:
>
>--------------------------------------------
>For all files except Beastie.eps: GPL
>Beastie.eps: BSD
>
>You can find the ....
>--------------------------------------------
>
>And if that's not good, would it be good to fetch the patch
>creating Beastie directly from the net during postinst and remove the
>image during preinst?
>
>Any advice would be appreciated.
>
>Regards,
>
>Rene
>
>[1] This eps was sent to me by the FreeBSD port maintainer, I put
> it for now on
> http://people.debian.org/~rene/debian/muttprint/addons/images/Beastie.eps
>
>[2] http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/ports/print/muttprint/files/patch-ae
>
--
Be Careful! I have a black belt in sna-fu!
Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu
Reply to: