Re: License concerns regarding package lft
MJ Ray wrote:
> Martin Millnert <martin@millnert.se> wrote: [...]
>
>>7. no permission is granted to distribute, publicly display, or publicly
>>perform modifications to the Distribution made using proprietary materials
>>that cannot be released in source format under conditions of this license;
>
> [...]
>
>>Section 7 seems suspicious.
>
> Is this saying (amongst other things) that someone cannot use any
> incompatibly-licensed compiler to produce binaries of it?
IMHO, it does NOT mean that.
I think that a compiler or other toolchain element is not a "material"
-- "materials" are things that go into a structure and become part of
it: lumber, paneling, roofing, etc. NOT circular saws, hammers, jigs,
etc. This would be as opposed to "tools":
from GCIDE:
> Material \Ma*te"ri*al\, n.
> The substance or matter of which anything is made or may be
> made.
> [1913 Webster]
Based on this license, I believe that the copyleft would extend to
things that are incorporated into or linked into the work:
software
libraries
fonts
graphic resources
but NOT to things that are only used in the production process:
compilers
editors
UNFORTUNATELY, my interpretation relies on the definition and usage of
the word "materials". Which I think is less clear than it could be, and
perhaps requires a very good grasp of English usage, which may be
especially problematic internationally.
So, if possible, I would encourage the original author to improve the
license text (which shouldn't bother them, because I don't think they
intend anything beyond DFSG). Changing "using" to "from" -- i.e. "made
from proprietary materials" -- makes it much clearer. There are people
who would object further that "proprietary" is poorly defined and also
that stating things in the negative is pretty confusing.
But I think it is usable like it is, even if no such changes can be made.
Cheers,
Terry
--
Terry Hancock (hancock@AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com
Reply to: