Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
Fedor Zuev <Fedor_zuev@mail.ru> writes:
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>>Fedor Zuev <Fedor_zuev@mail.ru> writes:
>>> One can argue, that separation of SUN RPC from GLIBS do not
>>> contribute enough (any) originality to constitute creation of new
>>> original work of authorship.
>
>>If that is the case, the license could claim that you must commit
>>ritual suicide and the work would still be free.
>
> ????
>
>>But I don't think it would be a good idea for Debian to depend on
>>the work not being copyrightable when clearly Sun thinks it is.
>
> I never said that Sun's code unoriginal or uncopyrightable.
Ah, I think I understand. You're talking about the originality
involved in the act of separating out the Sun RPC code from the glibc
code? I don't see how that's relevant.
> Sorry. I was very unclear.
>
> SUN RPC, "extracted" from GLIBC is not a work, derived from
> GLIBC because of above. SUN RPC, "extracted" from GLIBC is not
> GLIBC. Because it is not. Therefore, according to the first
> definition, it is not a "work based on the GLIBC". It is simply SUN
> RPC. Because it is. Therefore, it may be licensed under any
> compatible license. Because only "work, based" on GPL-licensed work
> should be also licensed under GPL. It is already licensed by SUN.
But when I received glibc licensed under the GPL (which includes code
derived from Sun RPC) I received it under the terms of the GPL.
Technically the Sun RPC license still applies, but the GPL guarantees
me that the work as a whole is available to me under the terms of the
GPL (if not, the guy who gave it to me is in violation, and I have no
license to the code whatsoever).
--
Jeremy Hankins <nowan@nowan.org>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
Reply to: