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

Re: License of ROOT: acceptable for non-free?

On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Kevin B. McCarty wrote:

> Clearly the license is non-free due to the requirement that modified
> versions not be distributed without the permission of the authors.  My
> question is this: if I were to obtain permission from the authors for
> Debian to distribute packaged binaries of Root, would that be sufficient 
> for it to go into non-free?

I don't think so.  Debian isn't enough of a well-defined entity for a 
specific grant of permission to work, even for non-free.  The author would 
have to grant permission for anyone to redistribute the package before 
it should even go in non-free.  

> As a side issue, a few non-essential programs in the Root tree link to
> Cernlib libraries, which are GPL [3].  Hence if those programs are not GPL
> themselves, they cannot legally be distributed, correct?  (Is this true
> for both statically and dynamically linked binaries?)  If it is OK to
> package the remainder of Root, I will mention this to upstream.

Yup, distributing it (even dynamically linked) infringes the copyright on 
the Cernlib libraries.
Mark Rafn    dagon@dagon.net    <http://www.dagon.net/>  

Reply to: