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

Re: Bug#234477: ITP: logsurfer+ -- real-time system log monitor

On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 05:09:12PM -0500, sean finney said
> hey rob (and -legal),
> thanks for following up with me on this.
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2004 at 02:08:40AM +1100, Rob Weir wrote:
> > > * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
> > > * provided that this entire copyright notice is duplicated in all such
> > > * copies.
> i think you and i interpreted this differently.  of course if there is
> any ambiguity, i should probably clear that up with them.  to me,
> "Redistribution and use in source and binary" seemed to imply
> "redistribution in source and binary" and "use in source and binary",
> with the "use" of source including modification.  but maybe i'm just
> reading into that too liberally.

Unfortunately, if a permission isn't granted explicitly, you don't have
it, no matter what the author intended.  Of course, if the author
intended what you said, he/she/it is unlikely to sue...but you need to
get the magic "modification" word in there.

> > > however, it's also built against the gnu regexp library, which is GPL'd.
> > > am i right in assuming that the software is then implicitly under
> > > the GPL?  
> > 
> > No, the above license is also incompatible with the GPL (since you don't
> > have the right to distribute modified versions), which means you can't
> > distribute it at all (even in non-free).
> so then technically they can't even redistribute it, because their
> program is built including GPL'd code?

Depends what "including" means.  If the actual source is a combination
of code under this license and the GPL, it's not distributable at all.
If it links against a GPL library at run time, then it's probably just
the binaries that are undistributable.

> > You'll need to get them to grant permission to distribute modified
> > copies; re-licensing it under the 3-clause BSD or MIT/X licenses (which
> > are both DFSG-free and GPL-compatible) would work, and sound like they
> > do what upstream wants, anyway.
> if the code includes gpl source code, doesn't that mean the code has to
> be GPL'd too?

As Henning said, it just needs to be under a license at least as Free
(ie can't have any more restrictions than the GPL itself, but it can
certainly have *less*) as the GPL; such licenses are called
"GPL-compatible".  The MIT/X and BSD licenses are good examples of
GPL-compatible "do whatever you want but don't say you wrote it"

> > * Copyright 1995-1999 by DFN-CERT.  All rights reserved.
> i'll try to follow up with DFN-CERT to get a clarification on this
> before i do any serious packaging work.


Rob Weir <rweir@ertius.org> | mlspam@ertius.org  |  Do I look like I want a CC?
Words of the day:         arrangements clandestine ICE world domination FIPS140

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: