Re: GPL compatible license?
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>
>
> > Could somebody check if this license is compatible with the GPL? It was
> > considered free with Debian, if I remember correctly.
>
> > 1. You may, without additional permission from the authors, distribute
> > Elm or components of Elm, with or without additions developed by
> > you or by others at no charge. You may also distribute Elm along
> > with any other product for sale, provided that the cost of the
> > bundled package is the same regardless of whether Elm is included,
> > and provided that those interested only in Elm must be notified
> > that it is a product freely available from the Elm Development Group.
>
> Hm, is this even free? I don't think so.
It was considered free according to the DFSG in the Debian past:
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1997/10/msg00537.html>
> > 2. You may, without additional permission from the authors, distribute
> > copies of the Elm Documentation, with or without additions developed by
> > you or by others at no charge or at a charge that covers the cost of
> > reproducing the copies, provided that the Elm copyright notice is
> > retained.
>
> This is not a free license for the documentation.
Fortunately the only documentation left over is a small manpage and this
one could easily be removed and rewritten and licensed under the GPL.
> > 3. Furthermore, if you distribute Elm software or parts of Elm, with
> > or without additions developed by you or others, then you must
> > either make available the source to all portions of the Elm system
> > (exclusive of any additions made by you or by others) upon request,
> > or instead you may notify anyone requesting source that it is
> > freely available from the Elm Development Group.
>
> The requirement to distribute the entire original source, rather than
> just source for the part one is actually using, seems
> GPL-incompatible. I am not sure whether it is DFSG-free or not; it
> might be saved by the patch exception.
Even with this addition:
> > or instead you may notify anyone requesting source that it is
> > freely available from the Elm Development Group.
Doesn't it say that it is sufficient to inform the users that they
can fetch the entire source code of Elm from the Elm Development Group?
Additionally, aren't the users informed about this properly by distributing
this license, e.g. in /usr/share/doc/*/copyright?
> The alternative option to notice "anyone requesting source" seems to
> be impractical - would I be required to send such a notice along with
> the answer to every HTTP request for my forked source tarball?
Since this is impractical, I doubt so.
I'm a bit more worried about the last but one paragraph now, which reads:
| Modification of the system is encouraged, providing that the portions of
| the system that are from the original still carry the appropriate copyright
| notices and that the changed sections are clearly delimited as such. The
| authors requests copies of any changes made to ensure that the various versions
| stay reasonably in sync with each other. Please send all revisions to
| elm@DSI.COM.
This fails the island test if there is no Internet around to send mail.
It is also impractical "that the changed sections are clearly delimited
as such", since this is difficult if you do not only add separate code
but also alter some existing functions.
Regards,
Joey
--
MIME - broken solution for a broken design. -- Ralf Baechle
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
Reply to: