Re: final licence question.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 09:32:34AM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2002 at 12:15:42PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> > I am about to send upstream my latest advice on the licence issues i
> > discussed here previously, and have one last question.
> > To recapitulate, upstream is packaging a pci adsl modem driver, which
> > use a software library to do the ADSL decoding. They don't have the
> > source to this library themselves.
> > They plan to release it under the GPL or something such, and i suggested
> > adding an exception for the proprietary code, as found on the FSF FAQ :
> > In addition, as a special exception, <name of copyright
> > holder> gives permission to link the code of this program with
> > the FOO library (or with modified versions of FOO that use the
> > same license as FOO), and distribute linked combinations including
> > the two. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all
> > respects for all of the code used other than FOO. If you modify
> > this file, you may extend this exception to your version of the
> > file, but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to
> > do so, delete this exception statement from your version.
> > Would this be enough for the driver in question to enter
> > debian/non-free, in particular, this allow me to distribute the
> > binaries, of the linked combination of the GPLed part and the
> > proprietary part, but does this cover me/us/debian about distributing
> > the proprietary .o in the source package, as this is a standard debian
> > kernel-module-source package ?
> If their code is GPL with an exemption, and the library they use is
> non-free and we can legally redistribute it, and the two pieces of code
> will be distributed together, this can be uploaded to non-free. Note
> that being able to redistribute the non-free code depends on *its*
> license, not on the license of the module being built with it.
> If the GPL code will be packaged separately from the software library,
> the GPL code belongs in contrib and the binary-only library belongs in
> non-free (if it can be distributed at all).
Well, i was afraid of that, but was hoping the "and distribute linked
combinations including the two" part would cover us a bit about this.
The driver is one package only, the proprietary parts is just an .o, or
various .o, since i can get powerpc, arm, sh and i386 version.
What would be needed for the proprietary part ? A licence stating that
it is ok to distribute it and link it with the GPLed driver ? Would that
be enough ?
I will try calling them about this tomorrow, but i already told them,
and it may take some time for them to get a licence back from the
copyright holder of the proprietary part.
Thanks for your advice.