"Martin Bialasinski" wrote: > I want to take xmysqladmin from Brian Almeida. There is a open bug, > that the license needs the xforms exception. > > The license is: > --------- > I reserve the copyright to xMySQLadmin. However, you are permitted > to use and distribute xMySQLadmin, provided that you > (a) distribute it with the full sources, and > (b) that you leave this documentation and > copyright notice intact. > --------- > > The bugreport says: > > > We don't distribute with full source, so we're not allowed to > > distribute it? > > > > However picks up this package should try to obtain the same > > license change as xmysql, or package the source separately > > as done with the tetex-src package. > > > > Thanks, > > Peter Galbraith > > > I do not agree on the point that "full sources" also includes the > source of the widgetset it uses.
That's not what I meant. I meant that we ship a binary-only package that does not contain sources. TeTeX has binaries with such a license saying that we must also ship sources, and that requirement is met with the tetex-src package. See: http://www.debian.org/Packages/stable/tex/tetex-src.html Now that I think of it some more, the xmysqladmin license says that we must distribute it _with_ source (meaning that sources must accompany the binary?) so it sounds like you might need a /usr/doc/xmysqladmin/src directory tree to comply. The alternative, as I said in the bug report, is to seek a license change. One such license that the upstream author might agree with is GPL plus an XForms exemption clause, similar to other GPL'ed XForms packages: You may link this software with XForms (Copyright (C) by T.C. Zhao and Mark Overmars) and distribute the resulting binary, under the restrictions in clause 3 of the GPL, even though the resulting binary is not, as a whole, covered by the GPL. (You still need a license to do so from the owner(s) of the copyright for XForms; see the XForms copyright statement). If a derivative no longer requires XForms, you may use the unsupplemented GPL as its license by deleting this paragraph and therefore removing this exemption for XForms. > Could you tell me who is right on this? Do you not agree that we are breaking the license with a binary-only package? Perhaps my interpretation is wrong? > Ciao, > Martin > > [ Please Cc: me on answers, I am not subscribed ] Peter
