Re: request-tracker3: license shadiness
Glenn Maynard writes:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 08:54:18AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
>> However, it's probably worth noting that there's a big difference between
>> [a] using the GPL verbatim and providing some additional license, and
>> [b] using some other license which happens to include terms from the GPL.
>>
>> This thread was based on an instance of [a]. [When this thread started,
>> that instance was non-distributable because of a silly mistake. It has
>> since been fixed.]
>>
>> I would hope that this is obvious -- we'd have serious problems if it
>> were not.
>
> I'm still slightly confused. How can the intent of the license have
> been that the "modifications you submit are ours" clause have been a
> separate license? License to what? If it's a separate license, it
> seems to have no binding force at all; if it's a separate license,
> I'd imagine we could simply remove it with impunity and avoid the
> confusion (which I'd doubt). It seems to me that it was intended to be
> an condition added to the GPL.
Jesse Vincent wrote[1] debian-legal to clarify that it was "not
intended to be an amendment to the GPL." I am not sure why BPS
expects it to have legal effect, but I think that's a problem for
them to consider.
[1]- http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/07/msg00003.html
> I'm not getting into the "self-contained GPL" argument here; I'm only
> talking about intent. I suppose asking upstream would be a better
> approach ...
Indeed, and it worked.
Michael Poole
Reply to: