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

Re: Question about DFSG and a THC project

>>>>> "MJ" == MJ Ray <mjr@dsl.pipex.com> writes:

    MJ> On 2004-04-22 00:08:31 +0100 Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>
    MJ> wrote:
    >>>>>>> "Jacobo" == Jacobo Tarrio <jtarrio@trasno.net> writes:
    Jacobo> O Martes, 20 de Abril de 2004 ás 13:52:19 -0700,
    Jacobo> Jake Appelbaum
    >> escribía:
    Jacobo> Let this be my first try at a license analysis in d-l :)
    >> >> 5. In all other respects the GPL 2.0 applies
    Jacobo> Oh, a nonconsistent license (places additional
    Jacobo> restrictions on
    >> the GPL,
    Jacobo> fine for the original author but not for would-be
    Jacobo> distributors of
    >> the work),
    Jacobo> thus undistributable.
    >>  No, I think this is consistent, just GPL incompatible and
    >> non-free.  He's saying that his license is the GPL with the
    >> provided differences applied.  He can do that; he is not
    >> violating the GPL's copyright by modifying it and he is allowed
    >> to make these license restrictions although they may not all be
    >> enforcable.

    MJ> Again, you open with disagreement and then restate the PP's
    MJ> view. He (the original author) can do that, but redistributors
    MJ> have to abide by the GPL which says "Each time you
    MJ> redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program),
    MJ> the recipient automatically receives a license from the
    MJ> original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program
    MJ> subject to these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any
    MJ> further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights
    MJ> granted herein."

Ah, I had forgotten the specific wording of the GPL in this case.

Based on the rest of the sloppiness of the quoted license text, I
strongly suspect he also intended to amend the GPL's terms so that
people redistributed under his amended GPL, not the original license.

Again, if that were the only issue with the license I would hold you
are needlessly splitting hairs with an author who clearly was not
writing a rigorous license and whose intent was clear.

The license is clearly non-free.  If you believe it is
non-distributable than I disagree, again because I believe the intent
of the author is clear. However I don't really mind splitting hairs so
much for non-free licenses.


Reply to: