On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 06:50:19PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > Isn't this whole thing incompatible with the (L)GPL anyway? The code > > in question has been highly modified and integrated into the glibc > > source tree, presumably with the modifications under the LGPL, > > It's not appropriate to presume so as to make things illegal. If there's > a valid interpretation that makes things legal, then that should be > the default. Only if there are no such valid interpretations, or if the > copyright holder states their interpretation, is it appropriate to worry > about this. > > > Sun has repeatedly clarified elsewhere that the intent of this is > > essentially "MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product > > alone." > > Not being able to distribute the original Sun RPC code alone is not a > problem, so long as we're able to distribute any variants of it that > we may actually want. If you're really concerned about other possible > caveats, please feel free to contact Sun to work on getting a clarified > license. However as it stands, the license passes the DFSG at least as > well as, eg, the Artistic license does. The copyright holder has, apparently, stated their intentions. And their intentions are: "MIT/X11, except you may not distribute this product alone". Are you seriously suggesting that this is *not* an additional restriction over those made by the (L)GPL? Otherwise, I don't see how you can claim it is compatible. And yes, the Artistic license is a good comparison. That isn't compatible with the GPL either. I repeat, *this* is not a DFSG issue, but rather one of being able to realistically distribute the code at all. If we can't legally combine GPLed code with glibc, that would be pretty disasterous. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
pgpY1PO9t4b_e.pgp
Description: PGP signature