Re: On interpreting licences (was: KDE not in Debian?)
Raul Miller wrote: > On Fri, Feb 04, 2000 at 11:31:48AM +0100, Marc van Leeuwen wrote: > > That point is: why does GPL section 3 not say something like the > > following? > > > > For object code or other kinds of executable work, complete source code > > means the full source text for all executable code that will be executed > > as > > a direct consequence of executing the work, and whose presence on the same > > computer as the work is a prerequisite for proper execution of the work; > > in > > addition it includes any associated interface definition files, plus the > > scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. > > That wouldn't work -- you've just defined the executable code as the > source code. > > Meanwhile, I've not gotten any real feedback on whether adding -static > to CFLAGS is legal, let alone any of the more complicated changes > I proposed... Making that change under the scenario described by Marc would violate the GPL, but so would lots of other things, such as linking a GPL program with a proprietary libc. In the latter case, it does not even require chaning any Makefile, simply the fact of having a different libc on the compiling system will result in the violation (of course only to the extent a static binary is distributed). I note in this regard that Section 3 of the GPL defines "complete source code" as: For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. Notice that it lists only "modules it *contains*", not all "modules it contains or links to" or all "modules it contains during execution" (the latter being relevant b/c "executable work" as written in the quoted sentence above refers to the executable work as it is being distributed, not as it exists at run-time). The next sentence reads: However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable. This sentence can easily be read to support the dynamic/static distinction. Normally you would distribute the "major component" w/ the executable only if it is statically linked, in which case you are required to include the source of that component; but if dynamically linked, you are not required to distribute the source. I.e., the GPL does distinguish b/w dynamic and static linking. As to your -static flag, I think you agree, from your past postings, that someone can distribute a GPL'd program dynamically linked against a proprietary Solaris libc, but that this person could not compile it statically by adding the '-static' flag and then distribute the program. So really I don't see how your kghostview example is any different from what is already allowed and done. Ciao, Andreas
Re: New OPL Draft
On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 08:11:09PM -0700, Richard Stallman wrote: > I think it may be possible to extend the DFSG[2] a little bit to permit > information under RMS's libertarian license-in-development, > > I don't know of any conflict between any license I am developing and > the DFSG; if you think there is one, could you please tell me the > specifics? Sorry, I was unclear. I was including your forthcoming license in a list of content licenses. As I understand your proposed license, it has no problems falling within the existing DFSG. This is not true for some of the others; whether Debian wants to extend its penumbra in the manner I described is something that will have to be extensively discussed. I'd certainly like your input on this issue; I've seen statements from you in the past which I understood to mean that you don't regard things like game level data as being crucial for software freedom in the same way that algorithms and executable code are. Keith Packard of XFree86, for instance, thinks that we'll never see much in the way of high-quality fonts that are free software, because the problems are just too hard. He knows far more about digital typography than I do, so I didn't argue with him; but the basic rationale does sound familiar, doesn't it? "Free software is fine for things like compilers but it just won't work for applications; it's fine for applications but it will never produce a desktop; it's fine for desktop environments but it will never produce an office suite..." Free software has become so successful that the arguments about what it can and cannot accomplish are being held about things that arguably aren't software at all. Documentation, polymodels, sound effects, fonts -- we need a way to separate the free wheat from the proprietary chaff in all of these cases. > PS: Please don't decribe my work as "libertarian"--I disagree very > strongly with that political party. If I were referring to the Libertarian Party, I would have capitalized the "l". I am still aware of libertarianism as a concept separate from the label that some organization has adopted for itself. (See also "republican", "democratic", "catholic", etc.) It seemed an appropriate word to use for a license that permits the licensee broad latitude to copy, modify, and redistribute -- in other words, to exercise a large subset of the liberties he would enjoy if the licensed work were in the public domain. If I have made an error in my analysis on this level, please point it out to me; otherwise, I must stand by my choice of terminology, which is more or less congruent with the dictionary definition of the term. I'll keep in mind the potential confusion in the future, however, and might have to start reserving a footnote for it. -- G. Branden Robinson|Measure with micrometer, Debian GNU/Linux |mark with chalk, [EMAIL PROTECTED] |cut with axe, roger.ecn.purdue.edu/~branden/ |hope like hell. pgpFc6ByasjOP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Unidentified subject!
debian-legal Bcc: Subject: Re: Copyproblem on some fonts I intend to package Reply-To: In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Sun, Feb 06, 2000 at 03:15:53PM + Organization: Linux X-URL: http://kenji.anu.edu.au/~chanop/ X-OS: Linux 2.2.14 i686 If one font has this copyright in the font file, Copyright (c) 1997 Phaisarn Systems, Inc. ,and the other one has no copyright about who made it but there exited copy of program creating it, %Created with FontMonger Copyright (c) 1991-2 Ares Software Corp. All rights reserved. /Notice (Typeface (c) The Monotype Corporation plc. Data (c) The Monotype Corporation plc/Type Solutions Inc. 1990-1992. All Rights Reserved) readonly def How should these copyright be interpreted? Chanop -- -BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK- Version: 3.12 GE d? s+: a- C++ UL++ P+ L+++ E- W++ N++ o-- K- w--- O- M+ V-- PS PE++ Y PGP++ t+ 5++ X+ R tv+++ b++ DI+ D- G e+++ h* r+ y+ --END GEEK CODE BLOCK--
