Re: GPL compatible license?
Matthew Garrett <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Brian Thomas Sniffen <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Martin Schulze <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>> Since the GPL has the three year clause, adding a "for a minimum
>>> of three years" in the above should fit as well, right?
>> I don't think Debian-legal accepts that clause as free. That is, the
>> GPL is regarded as Free because it's got clause 3a, not 3b or 3c.
>> They're extraneous, and so haven't been looked at very closely.
> For a license to be GPL-compatible, does it need to offer all of 3a, 3b
> or 3c, or would allowing for one of them be acceptable? I'm not entirely
> clear on whether it would be an additional restriction or not.
To be GPL-compatible, it has to offer all of them -- otherwise someone
might try to use the GPL and option 3c, and discover that he is
restricted from doing so by the additional license, which clearly then
provides additional restrictions.
But a license can only offer 3a and still be Free. Just not
A license which only offers 3b and 3c is not Free or GPL-compatible.
Brian Sniffen email@example.com