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

Re: PHPNuke license

On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 01:50:49PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I'm not sure you've answered the question I meant to ask.  Let me try to
> rephrase:  if debian-legal finds that such a requirement from upstream is a
> legitimate clarification of the GPL (rather than an additional
> restriction imposed on top of the GPL), do you think it's appropriate for
> debian-legal to reject a piece of GPL software whose author imposes this
> restriction, given that the GPL is explicitly grandfathered into the

You say "grandfathered" a lot :)

I don't agree that DFSG#10 is a grandfather clause.  It clearly lists
those licenses as *examples* of free licenses, not as exceptions to the
earlier guidelines.  In effect, it tells us that an interpretation of
the DFSG that would rule out the GPL is probably wrong.

(However, I think the Artistic License was added to that list by mistake.
IIRC, perl is distributed under a dual license because Ian Murdock asked
for that, in order to be able to distribute perl as part of Debian.  This
predates both the DFSG and my involvement with Debian, though, so I don't
know the details.)

I can't answer your actual question yet, I'll have to think about it
some more.  In particular, I'd like to see your hypothetical actually
resolved one way or another, and then we can look at the arguments that
resolved it and see how far they go.

> I think it is always appropriate to assume the license on a piece of
> software is exactly what the copyright holder states that it is; if
> nothing else, this avoids unnecessary lawsuits.

If the GPL is involved, we should also make sure that the copyright
holder isn't mixing the creatively-GPL code with real GPL code from
other sources.

Richard Braakman

Reply to: