Re: SUN RPC code is DFSG-free
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>Fedor Zuev <Fedor_zuev@mail.ru> writes:
>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, Jeremy Hankins wrote:
>>>I thought I'd been following this discussion, but it seems to have
>>>branched off into a discussion of originality. Unless I'm horribly
>>>confused (which, as always, is possible) originality is absolutely
>>>irrelevant to the Sun RPC code, because work derived from it is,
>>>well, derived from it, and therefore clearly not original. (If I
>>>am confused, I'd personally appreciate a recap that would explain
>>>the connection, as I've gone back and reread the past few messages
>>>and the connection is still opaque to me.)
>[snip]
>> 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.
>>>2) If the answer to (1) is no, is that restriction compatible with
>>> the GPL?
>>
>> Maybe.
>>
>> GPL defines "work based on the Program" twice:
>>
>> First, it clearly refers to "derivative work under copyright
>> law"
>>
>> ----------------------
>> The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work,
>> and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any
>> derivative work under copyright law.
>> ----------------------
>>
>> Second, it refer only to "modify" itself
>>
>> ----------------------
>> You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any
>> portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy
>> and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section
>> 1 above
>> ----------------------
>>
>> Under first definition, all OK. Under second - maybe not.
>I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here.
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.
Reply to: