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

Re: PHP-Nuke: A calling for votes

"GPL", not "GLP".  (I assumed it was a typo before, but you're
consistently spelling it incorrectly.)

On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 10:15:56AM +0100, hec@debian.org wrote:
> So now, we can discuss the rest of the matter. But keep in mind the
> precedent point, please.

Could you repeat what the "precendent point" is?  I missed it.

(inserted important but omitted quotes)

> Richard Braakman wrotes:
>>Note that this is not so much a legal question as a question of
>>software freedom.  The only legal argument that would apply would
>>go like this:
> >  1. The GPL is DFSG-free by definition
> >  2. The author is interpreting GPL 2(c) in a legally valid way
> >  3. Therefore, the condition is also DFSG-free
> That's my point of view. We have judge Mr.F.Burzi and found him guilty.
> But he is legally innocent. We have decided this way due to our moral
> conception of free software. We already have found a bug on GLP, as
> Richard pointed before. So we need a new version of GLP (at least
> something positive coming out from this flame). 

That's just a possible argument; there's no consensus on these points.

Most directly, there's no consensus on #2.  The opposite, actually; I
don't recall seeing anyone actually asserting that this interpretation
of the GPL is correct at all.  (David, could we get a position on the
"must attach GPL blurb to every output page" interpretation from the
FSF, so we can resolve this question?)

If #2 is incorrect (and the interpretation is simply bogus), then there
are lots of problems (as he's apparently not the sole copyright holder)
and the package should probably not be in non-free, either.

If it's unclear, and the author is simply stretching the definition in
a non-free way, then we want to discourage that interpretation.  (However,
this is a social reason not to distribute it, not a legal one, and I'd
just hope that you're feeling responsible. :)

If it's unclear, or if it is, in fact, a reasonable interpretation, then
you're probably right in that there's a license bug, too, but we aren't
there yet.

(#1 is also questionable, but that's a tangent that's been discussed
recently--search recent archives for "grandfather"--so I won't go there.)

> But in the meantime
> phpnuke should have the right to stay in main, as it it technically GLP
> compilant, we liked or not.

No software has any "right" to be in main to begin with.

Glenn Maynard

Reply to: