[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: BSD license, core libraries, and NetBSD

On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 07:49:29PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Joel Baker <lucifer@lightbearer.com>
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2002 at 03:08:38PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> > > The system-library exception expressly only applies "unless that
> > > component accompanies the executable". Traditionally we hold it to count
> > > as "accompanying" when the library as well as the GPL'ed stuff appears
> > > in Debian's main archive. I've argued that this is the interpretation
> > > that is most likely to fit RMS's intentions with the GPL.
> > Since the relevant packages would be Required+Essential (libc12) or
> > Standard (libc12-dev), mapping the current libc6/libc6-dev in i386, this
> > seems like it should meet that qualification.
> I have a feeling we're talking past each other. Do we agree that
>   We can *not* have a Debian port with a GPL-incompatible libc,
>   because the GPL forbids us to distribute GPL'ed binaries linked
>   with a GPL-incompatible libc when the libc itself accompanies the
>   binary.
> ?

1) I agree that we can't have a port with a GPL-incompatible libc.

2) I assert that NetBSD's libc, while under a 4-clause license, qualifies
under the GPL clause exempting system libraries from the linking
limitations (that nailed OpenSSL and others).

Part 2 is why I'm asking -legal.

The actual honoring of advertisement requirements is a separate (though
still important) issue.

> > > Um, sorry for being slow, but what is a "4-clause" BSD license? One
> > > that has positive as well as negative advertising clauses? Would such a
> > > license even be internally consistent?
> > 4 clause being the old BSD license which has an advertising clause as #3.
> > The revised BSD license only has 3 clauses.
> The BSD with advertising clause I can find at
> <http://www.debian.org/misc/bsd.license> has only three
> clauses. Paraphrased:
>   1. Keep the copyright statement when distributing source
>   2. Keep the copyright statement when distributing binaries
>   3. Negative advertising clause.

This is the 'revised BSD' license.

> What is the fourth clause of the license you're referring to?
> As far as I remember, a negative advertising clause is OK for
> GPL-compatibility, but a positive one creates problems.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html has an example of the clause in
question. I suppose that is the 'positive advertising' clause you're
speaking of, since it requires advertisement of certain things, rather than
denying it.
Joel Baker                           System Administrator - lightbearer.com
lucifer@lightbearer.com              http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/

Attachment: pgpHA326zVVZL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: