Re: MTL license
Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> schrieb/wrote:
>> "c) rename any non-standard [-executables-] {+types and functions+}
>> so the names do not conflict with [-standard executables,-]
>> {+Standard Version,+} which must also be provided, and provide a
>> separate [-manual page-] {+documentation+} for each non-standard [-
>> executable-] {+type of function+} that clearly documents how it
>> differs from the Standard Version."
> Requiring that I change function names is completely non-free; this is
> essentially says that a forked library must be both source and binary
> incompatible.
It's a borderline case. DFSG #4 nearly allows that. However, this only
matters if none of the other options (or a combination of them) can be
considered free.
> I believe the resulting section 3 is non-free; none of the options are
> acceptable. (Some people will argue that 3a is free, but I don't think
> it is.)
3a (or 3.1) actually provides three options (I have numbered them below
for further discussion):
3.1.1 ``place your modifications in the Public Domain or''
3.1.2 ``otherwise make them Freely Available, such as by [...]'' (From
the Definitions section: ``"Freely Available" [...] also means
that recipients of the item may redistribute it under the same
conditions they received it.''
3.1.3 ``or by allowing the Copyright Holder to include your
modifications in the Standard Version of the Package.''
3.1.2 in combination with 3.2 looks free to me.
> The entire "4. You may distribute the programs of this Package in object
> code or executable form, provided that you do at least ONE of the following:
> ..." section was removed. It seems like nothing in this license grants
> permission to distribute binaries (modified or not).
As the license clearly says that it's based on the Artistic License,
this seems to be intentional.
However, this might be due to fact that the MPL is a template library,
which only consists of "header" files and normally is not compiled at
all except as a part of a program using the library.
I don't think that it was the intention of the MPL owners to make any
binary of a program using the MPL completly undistributable, so there's
a chance that upstream might be willing to revise the license.
Claus
--
http://www.faerber.muc.de
Reply to: