On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 09:06:29PM -0400, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 03:11:52PM -0600, Neal Richter wrote: > > > 2) Can I reasonably argue that htdig is gpl (or lgpl) if its linked > > > against a 3 or a 4 cloause BSD license? - htdig .3.1.6 builds static > > > libraries (.a) it links against. > > > > Sure you can! > > > > Note that although the Free Software Foundation may say that a 4-clause > > BSD license is incompatible with the GPL (and they do)..... that opinion > > only > > applies to code that the FSF holds the copyright for. > > Not quite. I believe that opinion derives directly from the text of the > license. The GPL prohibits adding further restrictions (GPL#6), and the > 4-clause BSD license does so. Unless a copyright holder specifically says > that he considers the 4-clause BSD license consistent with the GPL, it's > not safe for Debian to assume otherwise. > > That is, the "default" interpretation, lacking a statement from (all of) > the copyright holders of a work, should be the one that follows from the > license text, and that's the FSF's interpretation, at least in this case.
As a point of note, RMS has said that this interpretation is considered to
be a bug in the GPL, and that the FSF has no current intention of pursuing
violations of this, because it wasn't intended (they still, of course,
recommend going to a 3 or even 2 clause variant of the license).
I believe I still have the email somewhere in my archives if necessary, but
to date it hasn't been terribly relevant.
--
Joel Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ,''`.
Debian GNU/kNetBSD(i386) porter : :' :
`. `'
http://nienna.lightbearer.com/ `-
pgpwSNXDR9Cdv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
