Re: cdrdao license issues show that cdrtools package is non DFSG, too?

[Anthony DeRobertis <asd@suespammers.org>]

On Fri, 2002-10-04 at 12:35, Branden Robinson wrote:

> Strictly speaking, our concerns are only whether a license is
> legimitate, and whether it's DFSG-free.

Well, when we see stuff like the cdrdao license, which appears to create
a dual-licensed mess along the lines of my hypothetical, I'd have
concerns about that license being legitimate.

Since it really doesn't make any sense what so ever, I don't think the
author intended to actually apply the GPL.

> However, that someone would wwant to dual-license a work under the GPL
> and something extremely unpalatable shouldn't really concern us.

It should if the answer is "they didn't want it"; instead, they wanted
something that sort of looks like the GPL, but isn't.

> 
> Your example above is a poor one because licensors often offer some kind
> of carrot to offset the stick, e.g., waiving the must-distribute-source
> requirement of the GPL.

Well, it quite resembles the cdrdao license, doesn't it?

> 
> -- 
> G. Branden Robinson                |      Never underestimate the power of
> Debian GNU/Linux                   |      human stupidity.
> branden@debian.org                 |      -- Robert Heinlein
> http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part