[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: License of cdrkit - GPLv2 + additional restrictions



On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 15:59:33 +0200 Andreas Barth wrote:

> * Adam Borowski (kilobyte@angband.pl) [060914 15:55]:
> > On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 03:37:11PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
> > > I'm concerned about the licensing of cdrkit[1,2] aka debburn,
> > > which was recently forked from cdrecord.
> > > 
> > > The current license seems to be GPLv2 + additional restrictions
> > > which IMHO is not right because GPLv2 doesn't allow any such
> > > additional restrictions.
> > > 
> > > An example from libscg/scsi-linux-ata.c[3]:
> > > <skip>
> > > *	Warning: you may change this source, but if you do that
> > > *	you need to change the _scg_version and _scg_auth* string below.
> > > *	You may not return "schily" for an SCG_AUTHOR request anymore.
> > 
> > Idea: what about reverting this single file to the last version
> > under real GPL (as opposed to GPL-with-unmodifiable-sections)?
> 
> This is not GPL-with-unmodifiable-sections, it is just "you need to
> document it if you change something". Which seems pretty fair to me,
> and I currently don't see the issue with GPL there.

It doesn't look fair to me.
It's a restriction on modification that forbids some possible behavior
of the program.  It prevents me to create a modified version (with, say,
some bugs fixed) that still behaves like the original one with respect
to those spat-out strings.  It prevents me to create a modified version
which is a drop-in replacement for the original one (because a front-end
would be able to distinguish the modified version from the original
one).

And such a restriction is not present in the (actual) GNU GPL v2.


-- 
But it is also tradition that times *must* and always
do change, my friend.   -- from _Coming to America_
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpRCDZ4FdJpY.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: