[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?

Florian Weimer writes ("Re: GPLv3 source code with license check for some build configuration, DFSG ok?"):
> Thomas Preud'homme:
> > 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'm leaning towards yes (because no usage restriction, source
> > available, GPLv3 which allow redistribution with or without
> > modification) and no due to this stanza in GPLv3:
> What does upstream have to say about this matter?
> The legal situation is a bit murky here, especially if the key prompt
> contains a copyright notice, whose removal is forbidden by the GPL.

I don't agree with this analysis.  The GPL does not generally forbid
removal of copyright notices; it requires their appropriate display
(see "Appropriate Legal Notices" in the definitions.)

OTOH we do not patch out copyright and self-advertising messages that
other programs print when started interactively, so we shouldn't do so
here either.

> In general, the GPL does give permission to patch out things like key
> entry fields and key checks, but the fact that you are able to infer
> that the author likely intended something else makes the GPL
> declaration somewhat doubtful (despite the curious construction in
> section 7 of the GPLv3).

I think s7 of the GPLv3 is a complete answer to suggestions that there
is somehow some implied additional restriction.


Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

Reply to: