Re: License concerns regarding package lft
Terry Hancock <hancock@anansispaceworks.com>
> MJ Ray 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;
> >
> > 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": [...]
So, in your opinion, houses are not made using tools and binary packages
are not made using compilers?
I disagree. I think that it might be debatable if it said 'made from'
but it doesn't.
The meaning of tools doesn't change the meaning of materials. Overlapping
meanings and different meanings for similar words in different fields
are not that unusual in English.
[...]
> perhaps requires a very good grasp of English usage, which may be
> especially problematic internationally.
Referencing a near-century-old US dictionary while suggesting that an
Englishman is wrong about English usage won't win my friendship.
(FWIW, the dictionary seems accurate as written in this case, but
beside the point here and not supporting the claim above.)
> So, if possible, I would encourage the original author to improve the
> license text [...]
Probably a good idea and a good idea for the improvement not to mention
'materials' at all.
I'm still worried by the current phrasing - can we tell how this is
interpreted by the licensor? Can we claim binaries are GPL by clause 6
or does the 'no permission is granted...' style of clause 7 overrule it?
I see that Florian Weimer was also concerned by this phrasing in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/07/msg00220.html
although it wasn't mentioned what package was being discussed.
Any more comments?
Regards,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: