So whats the verdict? I take it that this is neither DFSG or GPL compatable?
On Mon, Jul 29, 2002 at 10:49:14PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: > Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > (please CC responses to me thanks; sorry if this has already been > > raised; I searched the archives but found nothing) Hopefully mail-followups-to should be correct this time... Reasons why it is not DFSG: On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 12:14:24PM -0700, Walter Landry wrote: > Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's unclear to me what falls under 3 and what falls under 4: it seems > > as if 3 is for all modification and distribution--it mentions > > "executables"--and 4 is for distribution of binaries only. However, 4 > > seems more restrictive than 3; it doesn't have the "freely available" > > option. So, I'm a bit confused. > > Hmm. I see your point. I think the license is unclear. I'm not sure > whether the restrictions in Section 4 are in addition to the > restrictions in Section 3, or rather Section 4 is an additional option > for Section 3. It could be argued either way. Spelling it out would > be a good thing. On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 11:23:19PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Selling the library is not forbidden. > > Really? "You may not charge a fee for this Ada library itself." On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 11:21:38PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > 2 You may apply bug fixes, portability fixes and other > > modifications derived from the Public Domain or from > > the Copyright Holder. A library modified in such a way > > shall still be considered the Standard Version. > > > > 3 You may otherwise modify your copy of this Ada library > > in any way, provided that you insert a prominent notice > > in each changed file stating how and when you changed > > that file, and provided that you do at least ONE of the > > following: > > This discriminates against people who cannot put copyrighted works > into the Public Domain. Reasons why it is not GPL compatable: > Maybe not. Section 7 says > > > 7 System-level subroutines supplied by you and linked > > into this Ada library in order to emulate the > > functionality defined by this Ada library shall not be > > considered part of this Ada library, but are the > > equivalent of input as in Paragraph 6, provided these > > subroutines do not change the library in any way that > > would cause it to fail the regression tests for the > > library. > > This is similar to the "operating system" exception, except that the > vendor of the operating system can't do anything that breaks Ada. For > example, the Sun libc has pow() defined. The Ada library might define > it's own pow() for small integers that does not give bit-wise > identical results to the Sun pow(). If the Sun one is used, it might > cause regression tests to fail, meaning that Sun could not distribute > the Ada library. The GPL only restricts Sun from distributing libc > and the Ada library together. This would count as an additional > restriction, and thus not compatible with the GPL. > > If you have any influence, changing this part to read more like the > GPL would be enough to make it compatible. Reasons why the license has silly mistakes: On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 03:46:22AM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > 3 You may otherwise modify your copy of this Ada library > > Should this say "distribute modified copies"? > > > b) Accompany the distribution with the machine-readable > > source of the Ada library with your modifications. > > Accompany any non-standard executables with their > > > > c) corresponding Standard Version executables, giving the > > non-standard executables non-standard names, and > > clearly documenting the differences in manual pages (or > > equivalent), together with instructions on where to get > > the Standard Version. > > Should this be: > > b) Accompany the distribution with the machine-readable > source of the Ada library with your modifications. > > c) Accompany any non-standard executables with their > corresponding Standard Version executables, giving the > non-standard executables non-standard names, and > clearly documenting the differences in manual pages (or > equivalent), together with instructions on where to get > the Standard Version. -- Brian May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>