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

Re: caml-light licence question.



On Thu, 15 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 12:42:43PM -0400, Don Armstrong wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 May 2003, Sven Luther wrote:
>>> Distribution of derivative works obtained by modifying the sofware or
>>> integrating it in another software is allowed only if the
>>> distribution consists of the unmodified, original source files for
>>> the software, along with difference files (patches) to be applied by
>>> the user of the derivative work.
>> 
>> As you've already pointed out, this prohibits us from distributing
>> modified binaries, and fails DFSG #3 and #4.
> 
> Would adding a "and is allowed to distribute binaries resulting from
> building this patched source" be enough to make it free ?

I think that whole paragraph needs to be re-written, as the
distribution of modified binaries seems to conflict with the "is
allowed only if... unmodified original source files" phrase. I'm not
quite sure exactly what they would prefer to see as far as source code
and modification availability (and if they want copyleft, it would
basically be the same conditions as the GPL v2.)

> since it is upstream who has come to me asking about packaging this,
> they should make the effort of changing the licence, i think. 

Good luck with that. Feel free to refer them to -legal if they need
clarification, and thanks for veing diligent about the licensing.


Don Armstrong

-- 
I'd sign up in a hot second for any cellular company whose motto was:
"We're less horrible than a root canal with a cold chisel."
-- Cory Doctorow

http://www.donarmstrong.com
http://www.anylevel.com
http://rzlab.ucr.edu

Attachment: pgpZeyWpx8LNU.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: