On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 12:02:59PM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Aug 23, 2003 at 11:49:47AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > > 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. > > "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If > identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Library, > and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in > themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those > sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you > distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based > on the Library, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of > this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the > entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote > it." I said, earlier, that I don't think this applies - the relevant code cannot "be reasonably considered independent". Have a look at the code - it's heavily modified for glibc. However, you're looking at the wrong license. Look at the license of all the GPLed applications which link to glibc, instead. Are *they* compatible with the sunrpc license? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
pgpozKIwv63gb.pgp
Description: PGP signature