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

Re: sphpblog License-Question (modified/expanded GPL)

Cord Beermann <cord@debian.org> writes:

> I want to add a package to Debian with the following
> License-Statement:

Does this mean you are the sole copyright holder? Or is this a work
derived from someone else's work? What is the license of that existing

> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The Simple PHP Blog is released under the GNU Public License.

There's no such license. You probably mean the "GNU General Public
License, version 2 or, at your option, any later version".

> You are free to use and modify the Simple PHP Blog. All changes must
> be uploaded to SourceForge.net under Simple PHP Blog.

This is an unreasonable requirement; the recipient may have no means
of satisfying this, but your license terms demand they do so anyway.

It also contradicts the GNU GPL: you're placing an extra restriction
on the recipient which isn't already in the GPL. This makes the work
unredistributable, because no redistributor can satisfy both the GPL
and your extra restriction.

> Credit must be give to the original author

Fine; this is already part of the GNU GPL version 2.

> and the Simple PHP Blog logo graphic must appear on the site and
> link to the project on SourceForge.net

This is an extra restriction, and has exactly the same problem as
discussed above.

> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Does this make the package incompatible to DFSG?

It currently is self-contradictory, which means no recipient can
distribute it at all.

> PS: Please keep the Cc on the wnpp-bug #421513

 \       "Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have |
  `\         to murder a loved one because they're the devil."  -- Emo |
_o__)                                                          Philips |
Ben Finney

Reply to: