On Thu, Jun 10, 2004 at 04:51:06PM -0400, Michael Poole wrote: > The start of /usr/share/request-tracker3/libexec/webmux.pl is: > > #!/usr/bin/perl > # BEGIN LICENSE BLOCK > # > # Copyright (c) 1996-2003 Jesse Vincent <jesse@bestpractical.com> > # > # (Except where explictly superceded by other copyright notices) > # > # This work is made available to you under the terms of Version 2 of > # the GNU General Public License. A copy of that license should have > # been provided with this software, but in any event can be snarfed > # from www.gnu.org. > # > # This work is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but > # WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of > # MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU > # General Public License for more details. > # > # Unless otherwise specified, all modifications, corrections or > # extensions to this work which alter its source code become the > # property of Best Practical Solutions, LLC when submitted for > # inclusion in the work. > # > # > # END LICENSE BLOCK > > Similar blocks are in the HTML source files for rt3. > > What is the impact of the third paragraph? "If you send us any patches and don't say otherwise, you're implicitly assigning copyright to us" This cannot reasonably be a part of a license. I think it was placed here in error. It's probably legally void. > Can Debian properly redistribute rt3 if rt3 alleges both distribution > under the GPL and GPL-incompatible restrictions? Does the fact that > the restrictions are non-enforceable (at least in the US) enter > consideration? Tentative "yes" to both, but I'd be looking to get upstream to remove non-license text from their license; there is a whole truckload of provisos here that you shouldn't really have to deal with. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature