On Fri, 9 Oct 2009 00:20:51 -0000 (UTC) "Thomas Goirand" <thomas@gplhost.com> wrote: > > It's not my position to get into Debian's debate. I can confirm for you > > that Ext JS can absolutely be licensed under GPL v3 without qualification. > > If there is commentary that can be read counter to that, then that is not a > > good read of what we are saying. From a legal standpoint, Ext JS can be > > licensed under GPL v3, or alternatively under a Commercial License from Ext > > JS. We put no conditions on the GPL v3 use, other than those of GPL v3 > > itself. > > > > ~ Adam > > Nobody is asking for debate, but if you were to write yourself "We put no > conditions on the GPL v3 use, other than those of GPL v3 itself." ends any > starting debate indeed, but then what you have write on your website is > kind of confusing (at least to some of us). > > Now, I wonder what other people from Debian will say after this declaration. What matters is what is claimed as the licence for the code itself, not how that licence is or is not described on a website. If the claims on the website are retained into the licensing of the software, then the software would seem to be non-distributable as the licence (taken as a whole, the additional claims and the main licence) is in conflict. If the software comes with an unaltered copy of the GPL3 and no other conditions, then the website claims can be deemed misleading but are irrelevant to the software to be packaged for Debian. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpu0QtJSuRXn.pgp
Description: PGP signature