RE:xpdf "informal clarification"
I think these are only author's hopes, and they have no legal effects.
---Original Email---
From:Sami Liedes <sliedes@cc.hut.fi>
Date:2007/01/22 14:59
To:debian-legal@lists.debian.org
CC:Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org>
Subject: xpdf "informal clarification"
[Please maintain the Reply-To: sliedes@cc.hut.fi, I'm not on this
list]
Hello,
The copyright file (and the upstream[1]) of the package xpdf says
the license is GPLv2, and:
------------------------------------------------------------
In order to cut down on the confusion a little bit, here are some
informal clarifications:
- I don't mind if you redistribute xpdf in source and/or binary form,
as long as you include all of the documentation: README, man pages
(or help files), and COPYING. (Note that the README file contains a
pointer to a web page with the source code.)
- Selling a CD-ROM that contains xpdf is fine with me, as long as it
includes the documentation. I wouldn't mind receiving a sample
copy, but it's not necessary.
- If you make useful changes to xpdf, please make the source code
available -- post it on a web site, email it to me, whatever.
------------------------------------------------------------
Of course it might be that the word "informal" makes these non-binding
(and IIRC the author stated somewhere that he chose GPL so he could
incorporate GPL code, so these as binding would probably make xpdf
undistributable). However, if they are considered binding, it would
seem that #1 and #2 would be non-free (requiring documentation to be
distributed with the program).
This might be a nonissue, just wanted to bring this to your attention
since I didn't find this discussed before.
Thanks _very much_ for your selfless work for the FLOSS community!
Sami
[1] http://www.foolabs.com/xpdf/about.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: