Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Ben Finney writes ("Re: Is mpage DFSG compatible?"):
> > The ‘CHANGES’ file contains an entry under “October 2002”:
> >
> > October 2002
> > - Released version 2.5.3
> > - Start moving mapge into the GPL...
>
> Can we tell who wrote that ? If the author of the questionable file is
> also the author of the changelog entry, and also added a copy of the
> relevant GPL, then that seems to me to be a clear statement of intent,
> which is what is necessary.
It's not a clear statement of intent, IMO; at best it is a “note to
self” for some *future* action, not yet achieved.
Even if that could be taken as a statement of intent, there are
conflicting statements of rather clearer intent: the existing, explicit
grants of more restrictive license conditions in the rest of the code
base.
Those intents are incompatible, and so there is no consistent license
that the Debian Project can assume. The conflict would need to be
resolved, preferably by the copyright holders removing the more
restrictive license statements, and making unambiguous license grants as
described in the GNU GPL's instructions.
> Of course in practice it is a good idea to have a clear and explicit
> statement, in writing, but that doesn't mean that a license can't be
> implied (or oral, for that matter).
Right, I meant that the Debian Project will need it in writing. Unless
you know better, I think the FTP masters are not willing to take an oral
statement as sufficient for distributing a work in the Debian system
world-wide under implied license that can't be verified later.
--
\ “Teach a man to make fire, and he will be warm for a day. Set a |
`\ man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.” |
_o__) —John A. Hrastar |
Ben Finney
Reply to: