Hello Mike,
On 10/10/07, Mike.Sullivan at sun.com <Mike.Sullivan at sun.com> wrote:
> >From shivakumar.gn at gmail.com Tue Oct 9 20:54:57 2007
>
> >Not a single GPL script goes into the package. The GPL scripts as
> >noted in an earlier mail are scripts that *can be* used to test the
> >build results.
> >The author has released expect under certain terms and conditions.
> >Changing this to any other license is being wrong. It also misleads
> >the users of the package.
>
> I specifically asked the lawyer about this yesterday, and since we
> distribute the source too (and I don't think we should avoid that)
> he said we do need to add the snippet even though the SUNWexpect
> package won't contain the test script.
>
> Note it doesn't say anything about changing the license - it just says
> "if it's gpl2 or later, we choose gpl2'.
>
> Also note I am not the one to argue with about this :) I can only tell
> you that they want you to add the snippet - if you disagree,
> you can, but you may delay your integration as we try to get
> the lawyers more involved (as I am an engineer not a lawyer,
> or a go-between, or anything more that McCoy might say in Star Trek :)
>
I understand your position :)
But, I believe a wrong precedence may do more damage than the value
the inclusion of the software provides.
Here are some options I can think of.
[1] Taking it up with the appropriate (legal) person whose advice this
is. Can be laborious.
[2] If you are ok with including *all* the applicable copyrights in
the copyright file, this again solves the problem. We can give the
complete & the right information
- Installed files from the package are in the public domain
- Additional test script that just co-exist(no compile/link/include
dependency) in the sources is under GPL2.
[3] If the above 2 options introduce overheads for you and you are not
keen on getting into it, the third option is that if anyone else is
will to submit, I am ok with them taking it through the remaining
process and submitting as contributors instead of me. The copyright
can be just the GPL related.
I didn't want to refute the points in your mail since I understand we
two exchanging mails doesn't help and between us the issue is
understood, but the below one I had to :)
> "if it's gpl2 or later, we choose gpl2"
I can include a line that says "If any part of the software in this is
written by MS, the terms & conditions are as defined by MS"
This is not false since it says *if* but nevertheless it misleads people!
regards
Shiv
PS:
I checked some of the packages in ON and I see many instances where
even in those packages where a GPL library/binary is delivered, the
copyright doesn't say so. This is not a right position to be in.
Ex: hal
Ofcourse this need not have a bearing on our case.
