On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 03:20:36PM -0700, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote: > Their explanation is attached below. If this explanation is > unsatisfactory and you have not received a better one in a separate ... > This application has been removed because of license problems, please > see #346313.
hi, 1st off, I'm always a bit upset to read (quoting vh reply from thread): > I never read the GPL I must say :-) from authors that are distributing their own work - it's like blindly signing a contract. But that said, I think such a valuable tool deserve a bit more effort to keep it in Debian. IMO LICENCE.AMAP has only really #4 as critical, as for the other points: #1 and #2 are already covered by GPL - simpler, perhaps a bit vague, but still redundant wording. #3 is nonsense and might be dropped altogether - yet perhaps vh just feels better to keep such pale shield on his butt ;) Anyway the use (act of running the Program) is outside the scope of the GPL. So we're left with #5: that's AAMOF requiring compensation. But that's no problem, #4 is the hard part: #5 relates to non-free 'derivative work', which is simply prohibited by the GPL, while for #4 it may be hard to tell whether such commercial service constitutes a 'derivative work', but I think the banner requirement on report actually does not put any 'further restrictions' on user, as it sounds like the required 'appropriate copyright notice' for interactive use (eg if you consider a web service calling amap through a cgi); or one might argue that the 'output report' can be considered as 'a work based on the Program' which, then would be covered by the GPL as well (hence #4 would be like #5 - 'derivative work'). So all that would be required, is that amap authors apply the usual dual-licence method to their work: either GPL v2 or commercial license (for #4 and #5 according to terms therein stated, or whatever else they deem appropriated). -- paolo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
