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

Re: summary of software licenses in non-free

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 06:57:09PM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> > > mmix-src        part GPL. part Donald Knuth license - modified files must be
> > >                 renamed and clearly identified. why is this in non-free?

> On Sat, 2004-01-10 at 13:38, Raul Miller wrote:
> > We probably don't have the legal right to distribute that one.  The Knuth
> > license imposes an additional restriction beyond the GPL, and the GPL
> > itself says that that means you're not allowed to distribute it.

On Sat, Jan 10, 2004 at 04:54:30PM +0000, Oliver Elphick wrote:
> Only true if it incorporates someone else's GPL source.  If it is all
> the author's own work, he can do whatever he likes and the licence
> becomes a composite of the GPL and his additional restrictions.

But we're not the author.

Yeah, the author always has the right to copy and distribute the files,
but I don't see how that applies here.

Also, at leat in the U.S., distributing source and distributing binaries
are legally the same thing.  Otherwise, distributing binaries wouldn't
be restricted by a copyright on the source.  If the grant of copyright
grants some exception to this rule, that's a different issue.  The bits
on the wire aren't the issue.


Reply to: