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

Re: Opinion about GPL-2 exception

On 13107 March 1977, Giulio Paci wrote:

> During a package review it came out that the software license includes
> this statement: "Should a provision of no. 9 and 10 of the GNU General
> Public License be invalid or become invalid, a valid provision is deemed
> to have been agreed upon which comes closest to what the parties
> intended commercially. In any case guarantee/warranty shall be limited
> to gross negligent actions or intended actions or fraudulent
> concealment."

> I contacted the original author and he explained that this statement was
> a request of their legal department to avoid the possibility that third
> party can change the license of the software (I guess a
> misinterpretation of the GPL-2 clauses 9 and 10). Unfortunately the
> author is not working anymore for the copyright holder and I am having
> some trouble contacting someone that is allowed to remove the exception.

My reading is that their legal department isn't worth any of the money
they get, and they should look for a new one. Or maybe one that
understands english.

Reading §9 it sums down to 'FSF may publish new versions, with different
version numbers. If your program specifies "any later version", the
later ones may be used instead'.
They are using GPL-2. They do not specify "any later", they even go as
far and include the release date of the GPL-2 which they use.

Now, §10 tells one what to do if you want to include the GPLed code into
non-GPL licensssed or commercial stuff.

Anyone who can read, especially when working for a legal department,
should see that their whole extra text does not even remotely do
anything besides showing they don't know what they do.

I see no trouble in getting the software into Debian.

bye, Joerg
I'm in no condition to drive...wait! I shouldn't listen to myself, I'm drunk!

Reply to: