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

Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free

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

Reply to: