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

Re: gens License Check - Non-free

"Benjamin Cutler" <cutler@cs.colostate.edu> writes:

> Brian Thomas Sniffen wrote:
>> Not only is that non-free, it may not be distributable.  A single
>> work, parts of which are GPL'd and parts of which are non-free, can't
>> be distributed because the GPL requires that the entire thing be under
>> the terms of the GPL.
>> -Brian
> I guess I'm missing something, I just read through the GPL and I'm
> having trouble locating the specific clause that states this... not
> that I'm doubting you, I just was not aware of this.

The entire work is derived from the code licensed to Debian only under
the GPL.  So this section applies:

  These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If
  identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
  and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
  themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
  sections when you distribute them as separate works.  But when you
  distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
  on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
  this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
  entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote

> Would this mean that even the source tarball is not distributable as well?

Looks that way, doesn't it?  The original author can distribute this,
because *he* wrote all the bits we have only under the GPL, and so he
isn't bound by this part of the GPL.  But Debian can't distribute this
-- nobody but the original author can do so.  And if he didn't write
100% of the GPL'd parts, he can't distribute it either.


Brian Sniffen                                       bts@alum.mit.edu

Reply to: