Bug#835368: RFS: confinedrv/1.7.7-3 [ITP] -- Hi everyone!

[Elmar Stellnberger <estellnb@elstel.org>]

Am 2016-08-25 um 12:39 schrieb Andrew Shadura:
> On 25 August 2016 at 11:53, Elmar Stellnberger <estellnb@elstel.org> wrote:
> > Am 2016-08-25 um 10:45 schrieb Gianfranco Costamagna:
> > > I see many GPL-2 similar-looking licenses, with some special exceptions,
> > > e.g.
> > > "In addition to the above license, you can relicense this software in
> > > whatever
> > > form you want, with a special exception: you can't do foo and bar if you
> > > change the
> > > license"
> >
> >
> >   The problem about additional GPL-2 clauses seems to be that they can be
> > dropped at any time. An unpleasant contributor can do so any time and I
> > would not be able to incorporate his changes if I wanna keep the additional
> > freedoms I wanna guarantee for the upstream version.
>
> They can be dropped (and, in fact, ignored completely) only if they
> introduce additional restrictions conficting with the GPL itself. If
> you're granting additional rights, you're free to grant them only
> under a certain condition ("you're free to relicence this software
> under a different license but you must keep this statement in tact").

  Yes, that is a good point and it certainly proves that GPL would work 
in this regard; but what about the other two issues:

> I do also know that the KDE team had a problem with their license
> when Apple came to publish their respective amendments in the sources
> of Safari. They do not run and will never run on OSS and this makes
> Apple publishing their sources rather useless to the OSS community.

  Now this is an additional restriction: you need to provide everything 
that is necessary to run your software under an OSS based system (with 
exceptions given for the kernel modules).

> Another issue is that I do not want to 'register' i.e. sell my
> personal data to a company I do not trust just in order to fetch
> their GPL-ed sources.

also not part of GPL.