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

Re: "Open Software License" and patent/reciprocity issues

Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 17, 2003 at 07:46:11PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > On 2003-11-17 18:46:53 +0000 Andrew Suffield <asuffield@debian.org> 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > >I think this one's non-free too. It's certainly absurdly overbearing.
> > 
> > I agree. Over-generalisation. Given that there seemed other problems, 
> > did any OSL-covered software get into main yet?
> elfutils

FWIW, I am currently unable to update rpm to a new upstream version,
because that new upstream version includes elfutils. And IIRC this list
advised me that it was non-free when I brought it up.

An excerpt of my mail to rpm's upstream:
> I've been slowly working on getting rpm 4.2 into Debian, but have hit
> quite a snag. I noticed that the elfutils are licenced using the Open
> Software License. A routine query on the debian-legal list about this
> license turned up a number of possible problems. The whole thread starts
> here:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200306/msg00025.html
> The concerns brought up are:
>   - Doesn't seem to explcitly allow binaries built from the source to be
>     distributed.
>     (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200306/msg00026.html)
>   - Seems to require (section 5) that if the code is used to provide a
>     service, it must be made available to all users of the service. FE putting
>     up a rpm-based query tool on the web would seem to require anyone who
>     uses it be provided with a copy of the code to elfutils.
>     (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200306/msg00028.html)
>   - The juristidiction limits (section 10) may be incompatable with the
>     GPL. Some think they're not DFSG free either, but there's no
>     consensus there.
>     (http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200306/msg00043.html)
>   - There seems to be a definite consensus that it's not compatable with
>     the GPL, since it adds additional requirements, and the GPL does not
>     allow there to be additional requirements placed on software linked
>     to software licenced under it.
> Probably a bad summary, but I'm no lawyer. I can try to get
> clarifications on any of these points if needed. I am left feeling very
> uncomfortable about trying to put elfutils and the new rpm into Debian.

No idea why elfutils is still in the archive given the above.

see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: