Re: Please Review: Official IBM Public License

[Wietse Venema]

Kragen Sitaker:
> I'm starting to get to the point where I am no longer interested in
> working with, or even thinking about, code that doesn't have a
> well-known license.  For example, the IBM Data Explorer license appears
> to leave the possibility open that people distributing modified
> versions will get sued in the following case:
> 
> IBM releases OpenDX.
> Party A adds features they own patents on to OpenDX, releasing OpenDX'.
> Party B adds more features to OpenDX', doesn't touch party A's code or
> add more code that infringes Party A's patents, and releases OpenDX''.

Agree - every vendor is responsible for getting proper licenses
for the software they distibute.

> So simply because the copyright on a piece of software is licensed
> under the IPL does not mean that the patents in it are licensed in
> DFSG-compliant ways; it seems to me that the patents could be licensed
> (by IBM) in ways that violate section 3 of the DFSG.  Worse, IBM could
> obtain the patent five or six years after people begin using the
> software; it seems to me that this puts people in the same danger of
> termination that the old Jikes license did, although to a lesser degree.

Agree - but this (something becoming subject to licensing) can
already happen with any piece of software.

Thanks for the input.

Wietse

Re: Please Review: Official IBM Public License

[Kragen Sitaker]

I'm starting to get to the point where I am no longer interested in
working with, or even thinking about, code that doesn't have a
well-known license.  For example, the IBM Data Explorer license appears
to leave the possibility open that people distributing modified
versions will get sued in the following case:

IBM releases OpenDX.
Party A adds features they own patents on to OpenDX, releasing OpenDX'.
Party B adds more features to OpenDX', doesn't touch party A's code or
add more code that infringes Party A's patents, and releases OpenDX''.

This same problem seems to be there in the license they're thinking
about using on Jikes and VMailer:
http://www.debian.org/Lists-Archives/debian-legal-9906/msg00213.html

Basically, it looks like section 2(b)'s sentence "The patent license
shall not apply to any other combinations which include the
Contribution." means that Party A's patent is licensed for OpenDX' but
not OpenDX''.  (Except that in the actual OpenDX license, it's worded
differently; the wording above is from the license posted to
debian-legal.  The OpenDX license says, "The patent license shall not
apply to the combination of the Contribution with any other software
except that it shall apply to the combination of the Contribution and
the Program where, at the time the Contribution is added, the addition
of the Contribution causes the combination of the Contribution and the
Program to be covered by the Licensed Patents."  Ref:
http://www.opendx.org/dlSrc.html.)

Am I missing something here?  I'm not a lawyer.

Since the draft IPL treats IBM as just another contributor, Party A
above could be IBM.

It was my understanding that IBM did this deliberately, to avoid the
following scenario:

IBM licenses patent X to company Y for $n per user of company Y's software,
Z.
IBM releases VMailer, which implements a technique covered by patent X.
Company Y makes a modified version of VMailer by deleting all but the file that
implements the patented technique, then adding all of the source 
code for Z except for the part of Z that implements the patented 
technique.
Company Y pays no further patent royalties to IBM.

This is possible under the MPL; the IPL language sounds like it prevents it.

So simply because the copyright on a piece of software is licensed
under the IPL does not mean that the patents in it are licensed in
DFSG-compliant ways; it seems to me that the patents could be licensed
(by IBM) in ways that violate section 3 of the DFSG.  Worse, IBM could
obtain the patent five or six years after people begin using the
software; it seems to me that this puts people in the same danger of
termination that the old Jikes license did, although to a lesser degree.

-- 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   Kragen Sitaker 
According to my medieval text in the seventh century a finalizer raised a
dead object named Gorth who infected every computer in Cappidocia ending
Roman rule in the region.  -- Charles Fiterman on [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: GPL exception statement (was Qt 2.0 is out)

[Henning Makholm]

"J.H.M. Dassen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Now that Qt 2 is out, can someone tell me what the debian-legal-blessed
> exception statement for GPL-using-Qt software is?

The latest iteration of the XForms exception statement I know of is:

| You may link this software with XForms (Copyright (C) by T.C. Zhao and
| Mark Overmars) and distribute the resulting binary, under the
| restrictions in clause 3 of the GPL, even though the resulting binary
| is not, as a whole, covered by the GPL. (You still need a license to
| do so from the owner(s) of the copyright for XForms; see the XForms
| copyright statement). If a derivative no longer requires XForms, you
| may use the unsupplemented GPL as its license by deleting this
| paragraph and therefore removing this exemption for XForms.

For Qt I belive one could simply

s/XForms copyright statement/Q Public License/
s/T.C. Zhao and MarkOvermars/Troll Tech AS/
s/XForms/Qt/g

-- 
Henning Makholm

Re: Qt 2.0 is out, with its new licence

[Henning Makholm]

Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> http://www.troll.no/announce/qt-200.html

is an announcement for Qt 2.0 which is licensed under QPL. QPL is
DFSG-free in itself, though only through the deprecated patch clause.

QPL is still not compatible with GPL in the sense that it is legal
to take originally GPL'ed code and convert it to use Qt and
redistribute the converted code.

> http://www.troll.no/free-license.html

is the license for older versions of Qt. It is not DFSG-free. There
must be some link confusion at Troll that makes it possible to reach
the old license from the new announcement. The license statement that
is in the tarball is the new free one, though.

-- 
Henning Makholm

GPL exception statement (was Qt 2.0 is out)

[J.H.M. Dassen]

On Fri, Jun 25, 1999 at 14:08:09 +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> http://www.troll.no/announce/qt-200.html

Now that Qt 2 is out, can someone tell me what the debian-legal-blessed
exception statement for GPL-using-Qt software is?

I convinced the author of pi-address
(http://www.in-berlin.de/User/miwie/pia/index.html) to add an exception
statement (http://www.in-berlin.de/User/miwie/pia/index.html#LICENSE), but
it was mentioned on IRC that this is not the blessed exception statement.

Ray
-- 
LEADERSHIP  A form of self-preservation exhibited by people with auto-
destructive imaginations in order to ensure that when it comes to the crunch 
it'll be someone else's bones which go crack and not their own.   
- The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan

Re: Qt 2.0 is out, with its new licence

[J.H.M. Dassen]

On Fri, Jun 25, 1999 at 14:08:09 +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> http://www.troll.no/announce/qt-200.html
> http://www.troll.no/free-license.html

> So, can anyone who followed the discussion summarizes if it is free or not, 
> now that it is the official licence?
> 
> At first glance, I would say no, since it is not possible to modify Qt.

http://www.troll.no/free-license.html explicitly mentions
:This is the license of the version 1 series of Qt Free Edition. 

Troll's webpages are inconsistent at the moment
(http://www.troll.no/announce/qt-200.html refers to http://www.troll.no/dl/
refers to http://www.troll.no/dl/qtfree-dl.html but that's partially about 1
and partially about 2) and thus confusing.

The 2.0 tarball has a doc/license.html which is the QPL
(http://www.troll.no/qpl/) which is DFSG-free.

Ray
-- 
LEADERSHIP  A form of self-preservation exhibited by people with auto-
destructive imaginations in order to ensure that when it comes to the crunch 
it'll be someone else's bones which go crack and not their own.   
- The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan

Re: license check

[Henning Makholm]

Hamish Moffatt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Are there any problems with this license (ie is it DFSG-free)?

It is essentially a reformatted BSD license. Perfectly free.

-- 
Henning Makholm

Re: [wietse@porcupine.org: Please review: Official IBM Public License]

[Henning Makholm]

Andreas Jellinghaus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > > IBM PUBLIC LICENSE - [INSERT NAME OF PROJECT] VERSION 1.0
> > > 6/14/99

> > Looks DFSG-ok to me.

> maybe debian can make a statement ? so postfix can be moved to main

AFAIK Debian as a project does not normally make formal statements
about whether individual licenses meet the DFSG.

As soon as the new license officially applies to postfix, the package
maintainer would be able to upload it (to unstable) with a new
copyright file and its section changed to main.

-- 
Henning Makholm

Qt 2.0 is out, with its new licence

[Stephane Bortzmeyer]

http://www.troll.no/announce/qt-200.html
http://www.troll.no/free-license.html

So, can anyone who followed the discussion summarizes if it is free or not, 
now that it is the official licence?

At first glance, I would say no, since it is not possible to modify Qt.

license check

[Hamish Moffatt]

Are there any problems with this license (ie is it DFSG-free)?

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions
are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
   notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
   notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
   documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. The name of the author may not be used to endorse or promote products
   derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
4. Redistribution of source code must be conform with the 'libpcap'
   copyright conditions, if that library is included.

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR ``AS IS'' AND ANY EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES
OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT
NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE,
DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY
THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF
THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

The libpcap license mentioned appears to be the BSD one:

.\" Copyright (c) 1994, 1996, 1997
.\" The Regents of the University of California.  All rights reserved.
.\"
.\" Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
.\" modification, are permitted provided that: (1) source code distributions
.\" retain the above copyright notice and this paragraph in its entirety, (2)
.\" distributions including binary code include the above copyright notice and
.\" this paragraph in its entirety in the documentation or other materials
.\" provided with the distribution, and (3) all advertising materials 
mentioning.\" features or use of this software display the following 
acknowledgement:
.\" ``This product includes software developed by the University of California,
.\" Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory and its contributors.'' Neither the name of
.\" the University nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse
.\" or promote products derived from this software without specific prior
.\" written permission.
.\" THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
.\" WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
.\" MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
.\"


Thanks,
Hamish

(please CC me as I do not subscribe to debian-legal)
-- 
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB (ex-VK3TYD). 
CCs of replies from mailing lists are welcome.

Re: Fwd: Re: kdrill SKIP bug

[Henning Makholm]

Fabien Ninoles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Here a follow-up of my correspondence with Philip Brown, the upstream
> maintainer of kdrill. Phil want to distribute kdrill under a modified
> Artistic licence and his main concern is about redistribution of
> modified binaries. It seems to me a kind of "configuration is ok,
> but I want to control any other modifications".

If he succeeds in saying so in a license, it won't be DFSG-free.

> > > b) full source code [binaries optional]
> > > You may chose to provide source modifications, and binaries based
> > > on those modifications. However, the original
> > > source distribution must be present, in its entirety.

I think that would qualify as being barely DFSG-free. It requires that
pristine source goes on the binary CD images, but there is precedence
that Debian can do that in some cases (tetex-src).

I wouldn't expect Debian to approve of such a scheme unless developers
agree that the benefits of having the package compensates for stuffing
technically unnecessary sources onto the binary disks. But I'm not a
developer myself, so I really can't tell.

-- 
Henning Makholm

Re: Is it illegal to distribute Linux kernel? KDE precedent.

[Joseph Carter]

On Thu, Jun 24, 1999 at 06:33:30PM -0400, Brian Ristuccia wrote:

I was going to stay out of this thread considering that the obvious
intent of our Anonymous friend was to either cause Debian to distribute
KDE with license flaws and all (since s/he clearly does not want Debian
to simply stop existing (as would be the case if we couldn't distribute a
kernel)) or at the very least start another flamewar  However, I feel
I must now join into the fray...


> The situation with the Linux kernel is different than the situation with KDE
> because the network compression and quota drivers are modifications to the
> Linux kernel. KDE is not a modification to Qt. 
> 
> It is my understanding that :
> 
> 1. Copying and modification of the Linux kernel was governed by the file
>commonly located at /usr/src/linux/COPYING

Correct.


> 2. Contributors who add to or modify the Linux kernel have accepted the
>terms for modification as indicated by /usr/src/linux/COPYING. Otherwise,
>they would not have the right to modify the Linux kernel. These
>these changes could not exist in the first place if their contributors
>did not accept the license for making changes. 

Not necessarily.  The GPL says in part:

  10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
to ask for permission.

The upshot of this is that whatever the Copyright holders or their
representatives say is allowed in addition to the premission granted in
the GPL is acceptable.  Who is the representative of the kernel
developers?  I'll give you one guess, but I'm not supposed to give it
away by telling you that his name is Linus Torvalds

The most obvious example of non-GPL code in the kernel is bsd_comp, the
BSD compression modules for ppp.  Essentially, this module is similar to
an application under the BSD license trying to use a GPL library---which
the FSF says the GPL does not itself allow.

So you have this BSD module and you want to use it with the GPL kernel
and be able to distribute the binaries.  You ask Linus and he tells you
that this is fine, as long as the BSD code is not compiled in to the
kernel itself.  You now have all the permission you need to distribute a
binary of bsd_comp--provided it's not compiled in to the kernel.  He's
also accepted the module as part of the kernel tree, though it still may
only be built as a module.


In fact Linus has given blanket permission for anything which is linked
with the kernel dynamically (ie applications, libraries, kernel modules)
to not be under the GPL.  Arguably if dynamic linking is not considered
fair use (debatable, however given case history of Copyright law as it
applies to software, a lot of things that SHOULD be fair use have been
determined to come under Copyright protections so don't count on it) then
NOTHING could be distributed in binary form if it weren't GPL without
such permission.

I'd have to hazard a guess that such a determination made by a court
would not terribly upset Richard, though lots of things in main and all
of the things in contrib and non-free would suddenly become not
distributable by us, just like KDE.

I don't know about you, but I think Linux would SUCK without inetd, ftp,
telnet, etc..


> 3. The Linux Kernel's license (The GNU General Public License) requires that
>all modifications be under the same license as the software being
>modified.

Unless other arrangements have been made, correct.


> 4. The files you mention, while they may themselves be covered by other
>licenses as noted in their respective source files, are covered by the
>GNU General Public License when distributed with the Linux kernel.

This is the problemthe BSD code is NOT GPL compatible.  And the
people who wrote the module based on the BSD code can't change the BSD
license.

--
Joseph Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBEThe Source Comes First!
-
* Culus thinks we should go to trade shows and see how many people we
  can kill by throwing debian cds at them


pgpcUbU1LPEWe.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Is it illegal to distribute Linux kernel? KDE precedent.

[Chris Lawrence]

On Jun 25, reject wrote:
> GNU/Debian can sure bullshit it's way out of a situation when it has
> to.  Debian/GNU Linux Kernel takes BSD 4.3 code and includes it in
> Debian/GNU Linux Kernel creating a derived work but distributes it
> under GPL which is in direct contradiction with the original license
> of the BSD 4.3 code which has an advertising clause that must be
> respected.
> 
> Suddenly this is magically made right by the above rhetoric?  Please
> if you call me a skeptic.

The "rhetoric" is incorrect; ask Linus if you don't believe the
explanation I posted previously.  He's prohibited major blocks of code
from entering the kernel tree because of the BSD advertising clause
(notably, the original 680x0 FPU emulator which was adapted from
NetBSD), and the bsd_comp situation is consistent with other non-GPLed
modules (bsd_comp just happens to be in the kernel tree).

(I return you to your regularly-scheduled trollfest.)


Chris
-- 
=
|Chris Lawrence| Visit my home page!|
|   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>   |   http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/  |
|  ||
|   Grad Student, Pol. Sci.|   Visit the Lurker's Guide to Babylon 5:   |
|  University of Mississippi   |   <*> http://www.midwinter.com/lurk/ <*>   |
=

Re: Is it illegal to distribute Linux kernel? KDE precedent.

[reject]

> It is my understanding that :
>  
> 1. Copying and modification of the Linux kernel was governed by the file
>commonly located at /usr/src/linux/COPYING   
>  
> 2. Contributors who add to or modify the Linux kernel have accepted the
>terms for modification as indicated by /usr/src/linux/COPYING. Otherwise,
>they would not have the right to modify the Linux kernel. These  
>these changes could not exist in the first place if their contributors   
>did not accept the license for making changes.   
> 
> 3. The Linux Kernel's license (The GNU General Public License) requires that
>all modifications be under the same license as the software being
>modified.
>  
> so,
>
> 4. The files you mention, while they may themselves be covered by other
>licenses as noted in their respective source files, are covered by the

GNU/Debian can sure bullshit it's way out of a situation when it has
to.  Debian/GNU Linux Kernel takes BSD 4.3 code and includes it in
Debian/GNU Linux Kernel creating a derived work but distributes it
under GPL which is in direct contradiction with the original license
of the BSD 4.3 code which has an advertising clause that must be
respected.

Suddenly this is magically made right by the above rhetoric?  Please
if you call me a skeptic.

Re: Is it illegal to distribute Linux kernel? KDE precedent.

[Chris Lawrence]

On Jun 24, Brian Ristuccia wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 1999 at 09:54:46PM +0200, Anonymous wrote:
> > My intense observation of GNU/Debian Linux Kernel with 
> > grep -R "All advertising materials" * has shown drivers/net/bsd_comp.c,
> > drivers/net/hydra.h & include/linux/quota.h
> 
> The situation with the Linux kernel is different than the situation with KDE
> because the network compression and quota drivers are modifications to the
> Linux kernel. KDE is not a modification to Qt. 
> 
> It is my understanding that :
> 
> 1. Copying and modification of the Linux kernel was governed by the file
>commonly located at /usr/src/linux/COPYING
> 
> 2. Contributors who add to or modify the Linux kernel have accepted the
>terms for modification as indicated by /usr/src/linux/COPYING. Otherwise,
>they would not have the right to modify the Linux kernel. These
>these changes could not exist in the first place if their contributors
>did not accept the license for making changes. 
> 
> 3. The Linux Kernel's license (The GNU General Public License) requires that
>all modifications be under the same license as the software being
>modified.
> 
> so,
> 
> 4. The files you mention, while they may themselves be covered by other
>licenses as noted in their respective source files, are covered by the
>GNU General Public License when distributed with the Linux kernel.

The situation with bsd_comp.c is that you can't compile it into the
kernel, but it can be used as a module.  make config enforces this
policy, even though there's no technical reason why it can't be
compiled-in.

The other two files are header files; all they do is define an
interface, which to my understanding isn't "code" per se.  I doubt
Linus would have allowed them in otherwise.


Chris
-- 
=
| Chris Lawrence |   Get your Debian 2.1 CD-ROMs|
|<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>|http://www.lordsutch.com/ |
||  |
| Amiga A4000 604e/233Mhz| Do you want your bank to snoop?  |
|  with Linux/APUS 2.2.8 |http://www.defendyourprivacy.com/ |
=

Fwd: Re: kdrill SKIP bug

[Fabien Ninoles]

Here a follow-up of my correspondence with Philip Brown, the upstream
maintainer of kdrill. Phil want to distribute kdrill under a modified
Artistic licence and his main concern is about redistribution of
modified binaries. It seems to me a kind of "configuration is ok,
but I want to control any other modifications".

Phil is quite a good guy, but my english don't allow me to help him much
about this issue (I'm never sure if I say it right even if I understand
quite well). So, can you send me some suggestions based on what you
understand about it. I'll make a resume and forward it to him.

Personal notes I just added are mark with FN:> Sorry if this make
some confusion but I'm stuck with IMP who don't have much editing
capability (or should I say Netscape?) ;)

- Message restransmis par Philip Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 16:57:18 -0700 (PDT)
From: Philip Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Philip Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: kdrill SKIP bug
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

[ Fabien Ninoles writes ]
[snip this part about an unknown bug]

> > So,  the distribution clause might be modified to be something like:
> > 
> > 
> > You may redistribute kdrill in any of the following ways:
> > 
> > a) A binary-only compilation of an unmodified distribution from
> >ftp.bolthole.com
> >[You must provide a noticable pointer that source code is
> > on ftp.bolthole.com]
> > 
> > b) full source code [binaries optional]
> > You may chose to provide source modifications, and binaries based
> > on those modifications. However, the original
> > source distribution must be present, in its entirety.
> > 
> > c) a set of patches to an unmodified distribution.
> >[you do not have to provide the distribution, just a pointer
> >  to the ftp site]
> 
> Sorry, I can make myself a clear idea of what this implied. My english
> is not good enough for such thing. Can I forward this again to debian-legal?

I'm tempted to abuse you with my french :-) but the license is in english,
so that might cause problems. If you want to forward it, go ahead.
But I think we are already okay. See below...

FN:> The following lines are part of some explanations about the way we
FN:> provide the pristine source. The four files mentions are the .deb,
FN:> the orig.tar.gz, the .dsc and the .diff.gz.

> We always provided all those four files. However, often the users just
> want the binaries and don't want to paid for the extra 2 CD who included
> it. So, for commodity, we ask the author to let us (and everybody else
> because Debian is an open movement who can't discriminate), to distribute
> modified binaries separately from the source, as long as we provided both
> the pristine source and the patches to the modified version from our
> ftp sites. 

It doesn't sound like you are really making "modified binaries". You're
only tweaking the configs, which is fine by me.
All you have to do is install the appropriate KDrill resource file, and
all the paths are set up however you like.
I don't consider that to be "modifying the binaries". I can put that 
explicitly in the license, if you like.

If all this sounds like it is okay, then I will draft a new version of the
kdrill license, and you can then forward that whole thing to debian legal. 
ça suffit?

FN:> I also ensure myself that the way we work is ok. A kind of polite
FN:> diplomacy ;)

>  And, finally,
> the Debian Bug Tracking System made me the first receiver of the bugs
> from the Debian KDrill pacakge, so I can filter the bugs coming from
> my packaging (fonts or libraries dependencies, and custom location)
> and forward you the program bugs (like SKIP, if even one of the
> Debian users got one). That's the way I'm used to work in Debian.

That sounds okay to me.

> OTOH, I have some difficulty to see want you want... For me, the GPL
> protects both my Copyright and my Code. The GPL don't allow people to 
> "freely" modify your code and distribute without notice:
>...

FN:> I will try to make this part clearer to Phil. My point is that GPL
FN:> don't allow you to distribute it freely without forwarding to the
FN:> maintainer. It's may be a bad habits among the community but it's
FN:> not permit explicitely in the GPL, AFAIK. Am I right about this?

well, for starters, I'm glad we had our chat about "modified binaries".
If I had the GPL, you could have tweaked things strangely, and just shipped
it. I WANT to be involved in that stuff, so I can encourage the proper
way to adjust it.

some of the other stuff you mentioned will problably encourage me to look
at the GPL again. But the other thing I don't like about it, is that it's
just too durn long :-)

FN:> Here he is right ;-) Someone as a good resume (mainly a bare-naked GPL
FN:> with all it's political speach removed) of the GPL around?

[snip last part altough it contains some good comments about Debian ;)]

- Fin de message