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

Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free



On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:15:57PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 06:41:31PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 12:58:32PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > > On Sun, Aug 24, 2003 at 04:13:31PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > > > An abbreviated form of the so-called "viral" part of the GPL says that
> > > > > everything you include in a GPLed work must be distributable under the
> > > > > GPL. 
> > > > 
> > > > This isn't quite accurate: it says that it must be distributable under the
> > > > terms of the GPL. That is, if you follow the requirements of the GPL, then
> > > > you're also obeying the requirements of whatever the actual license is.
> > > 
> > > That's what I said, only longer. And it remains the essence of the
> > > problem here - we _can't_ distribute it under the GPL.
> > 
> > No, it's not what you said. What you said is "we can't distribute it
> > under the GPL", a.k.a. "We can't take this, say its license is the GPL,
> > and redistribute it as such", which obviously is correct. What aj said
> > is "We can take this, *pretend* its license is GPL, and distribute it as
> > such". Provided the license is GPL-compatible in the way we distribute
> > it, we can do that, as long as we don't actually modify the license
> > terms.
> 
> There's no difference between these two things. Not that it has any
> relevant to the current discussion.

I think we've argued about this before.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/debian-legal-200206/msg00157.html

-- 
G. Branden Robinson                |    I have a truly elegant proof of the
Debian GNU/Linux                   |    above, but it is too long to fit
branden@debian.org                 |    into this .signature file.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

Attachment: pgpEU1LXptWoD.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: