Brian Ristuccia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You may, at your option and for the purposes of distributing > > > this program in object code or executable form under Section > > > 3 of the GNU General Public License, assume that the complete > > > source code for this program does not include the xforms library > > > (Copyright (c) by T.C. Zhao and Mark Overmars). If you choose not > > > to excercise this option, you may distribute this software only > > > under the terms of the GNU General Public License and may remove > > > this paragraph.
Raul Miller wrote: > > Still needs more work: this implies that you can't distribute > > something compiled against xforms with this clause. Peter S Galbraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How so? I'm not sure why you're asking this, why you think that the above clause solves anything... (a) xforms has restrictions on distribution which mean that it can't be distributed as part of a GPLed program. (b) the above clause just re-states that xforms isn't a part of the program. Perhaps Brian was thinking of qualifying for the special exception for non-free operating systems -- which was designed to let people install GPLed software on a non-free operating system, but not let the distributor of that non-free operating system include the GPLed software till they fixed the license. If so it's not clear whether he wants Debian to adopt the position of the distributor of the non-free OS, or if he wants Debian to adopt the position of the add-on GPLed software distributor... either way though this clause doesn't solve the problem of distributing them together. > Any suggestions? I'd like to sort this out once and for all (See my > debian-legal post `6 GPL'ed Packages that depend on XForms') with > debian-legal's help. I've seen some good suggestions on this list. Without knowing why those aren't acceptable, I'm not sure what else to suggest. -- Raul
