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

Re: DFSG-ness of two



> > > > > > > > - 3. You may not have any income from distributing this source
> > > > > > > > -    (or altered version of it) to other developers. When You
> > > > > > > > -    use this product in a comercial package, the source may
> > > > > > > > -    not be charged seperatly.
> > > 
> > > The two sentences can not be dissociated: the second sentence gives as much
> > > freedom as in the SIL OFL 1.1, regardless of the restrictions in the first
> > > sentence, so altogether, the clause 3 quoted above is DFSG-Free, if we agree
> > > that the SIL OFL 1.1 itself is DFSG-Free.
> > 
> > The second sentence is restricted by the first sentence. Within the
> > meaning of the license, a commercial package does not include source
> > sold to other developers.
> 
> That is a different interpretation than mine, and it might be useful to confirm
> with the original author if this is what he intended.

Would you be able to do that? I'm not quite sure that I understand your
interpretation, so I wouldn't be able to write the email well.

> In any case, Debian already redistributes software licensed under these terms
> in fpc_2.6.4+dfsg-5/fpcsrc/packages/regexpr/src/regexpr.pas and
> lazarus_1.2.4+dfsg2-1/components/synedit/synregexpr.pas (thanks,
> codesearch.debian.net), so either this was overlooked, or the interpretation
> taken by the FTP team is that the second sentence solves the problem introduced
> by the first.

Both of those files allow the option of a modified LGPL. That being
said, I acknowledge that cqrlog_1.9.0-1/src/RegExpr.pas doesn't allow
this option.

Attachment: pgpYqpyG4I1Ts.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: