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

Re: License question: GPL+Exception



On Sat, 12 May 2007 13:55:23 -0600 Wesley J. Landaker wrote:

> On Saturday 12 May 2007 13:30:43 Francesco Poli wrote:
[...]
> > If this is the case, the work could be even undistributable, because
> > it's licensed under inconsistent[1] terms (GPLv2 + additional
> > restrictions).
> >
> > What do other debian-legal contributors think?
> 
> This makes it GPL incompatible, but I think it's still DFSG free.
> 
> The GPL says:
> 
> """
>   6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
> Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
> original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
> these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
> this License.
> """
> 
> So if you redistribute the Program, you may not impose any further 
> restrictions.

You may not impose any further restrictions with respect to the *rights
granted by the GPL*.  But there are already such restrictions, and you
cannot remove them because you are not the copyright holder.
Hence you cannot comply with the license and the work is
undistributable.

Please see the thread that I referenced in the footnote of my previous
message.

> Obviously others, like Debian, could not add additional 
> restrictions. However, assuming RedHat is not using parts of GPL
> software  in their fonts, they are free to add addition restrictions
> the their  originally licensed software--as they copyright holders,
> they can use any  license they want.

They can use any license they want, but if they use a self-contradicting
one, we do *not* have a valid license and the result is an
undistributable work...

[...]
> The restriction they've added itself is very GPLv3-esque, so I don't
> see why  it wouldn't be DFSG free[1].

The fact that a clause is *similar* to one seen in a GPLv3 draft has
*never* been a valid reason why it should be considered DFSG-free.
Please, let's avoid drifting away from the topic we are talking about:
we are trying to analyze a GPLv2 + restrictions licensing scheme.



-- 
 http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html
 Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through?
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgp97JcHE9D6N.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: