Samuel Henrique dijo [Tue, Nov 12, 2019 at 11:35:12PM +0000]: > Hello legal, > > So I stumbled upon this rather interesting case of a software licensed by > GPL2 but with an extra "clause" to it: > " > # If you enclose this script or parts of it in your software, it has to > # be accompanied by the same license (see link) and the place where to get > # the recent version of this program. Do not violate the license and if > # you do not agree to all of these terms, do not use it in the first place. > " > https://github.com/drwetter/testssl.sh/blob/3b89dc6b0a41299fbf462789998e4c103f4f0210/testssl.sh#L19-L22 > (...) > My question is regarding DFSG compliance around this, I believe there is > nothing wrong with > it, but the fact that upstream expose is as GPL-2 seems a little > misleading, as it's not plain GPL-2 and I think we should change something > in d/copyright to address this.
I'm leaving aside the question that has been picked up, regarding whether this can be made under the GPLv2, or whether this is a "requirement" or a "polite request"... The requirement itself seems very similar to the "advertising clause" in the four-clause BSD license: https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/05/msg00753.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2004/04/msg00325.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/bsd.html At that point, 4-clause BSD licenses were judged non-DFSG-free. Greetings,