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

Re: GPLv3 source code with license check for some build configuration, DFSG ok?


Thank you Ian and Dmitry for the feedback,

On lundi 19 février 2018 15:07:18 GMT Ian Jackson wrote:
> Thomas Preud'homme writes ("Re: GPLv3 source code with license check for 
some build configuration, DFSG ok?"):
> > The questions I was asking in the original thread on -mentors are:
> > 
> > - Is a non-ultimate build DFSG ok?
> > - Does the ultimate build respect the GPLv3?
> I think there is no legal problem.  The questions are of ethics.
> AFAICT from what you are saying:
> The "ultimate" build is somehow superior.
> The upstream authors have granted legal permission by using the GPLv3,
> to disable the licence check.  I guess that they would prefer users of
> the "ultimate" build to pay them or something; this is probably mostly
> "enforced" by providing users pre-built binaries, and hoping that
> no-one will ship non-licence-enforcing binaries.

Yes, that's their strategy from what I can see. I guess the average Windows 
user is less likely to compile a software from source to have a custom build.

> So I don't think there is any _legal_ problem with any of the options
> you are considering.
> > Feature wise, the ultimate edition seems to only differ in the
> > license check, message with the version being embedded the word
> > "ultimate" and the absence of the following text in the UI: "Buy the
> > Ultimate version to fund development".  The ultimate build seems to
> > be limited to Mac OS and Windows only, ie it does not build on Linux
> > but that's only because of a macro check. It could trivially be
> > disabled.
> I think there is nothing very objectionable about that UI text,
> provided it's not too intrusive.  Indeed, GNU programs print
> self-advertisements too (not asking for money, so that's perhaps a bit
> different, but the same principle applies).

I'm yet to find where it is in the UI so I guess that's quite discreet :-)

> If the extra UI is an annoying nag then there should be a way to
> disable it but IMO you can leave it enabled by default.
> > Given the differences mentionned above, I prefer to just use a non
> > ultimate
> > build. The only difference except version number in some help string is to
> > encourage users to contribute to its development by telling them to buy
> > the
> > ultimate edition. They are free not to do it so I think that respects the
> > DFSG.
> Yes.
> So, there is no problem, I think.
> Personally, I would not simply disable the UI nag, even though we have
> legal permission to do so.  Upstream would probably find it annoying.


> OTOH if there are actual _features_ in the "ultimate" version that
> aren't in the standard version, they should be enabled in the Debian
> package.  It is OK for a Debian package to promote, to a limited
> extent, the reasonable agenda of its upstreams - but we should not be
> shipping crippleware.

There is no extra feature. I've uploaded the non ultimate build given the 
general consensus here.

Best regards,


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: