Re: GPL compatible license?

[Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>]

Thanks Andrew!

Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 08:46:33AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > >  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?
> 
> Still doesn't appear GPL-compatible (although this clause is probably free).

Not sure if this is possible but would it be fine when modified to read:

        3. Furthermore, if you distribute Elm software or parts of Elm, with
           or without additions developed by you or others, then you must
           make available the source to all portions of the new system
           upon request.

Regards,

	Joey

-- 
MIME - broken solution for a broken design.  -- Ralf Baechle

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.