Thomas Preud'homme writes ("Re: GPLv3 source code with license check for some build configuration, DFSG ok?"): > The questions I was asking in the original thread on -mentors are: > > - Is a non-ultimate build DFSG ok? > - Does the ultimate build respect the GPLv3?
I think there is no legal problem. The questions are of ethics. AFAICT from what you are saying: The "ultimate" build is somehow superior. The upstream authors have granted legal permission by using the GPLv3, to disable the licence check. I guess that they would prefer users of the "ultimate" build to pay them or something; this is probably mostly "enforced" by providing users pre-built binaries, and hoping that no-one will ship non-licence-enforcing binaries. So I don't think there is any _legal_ problem with any of the options you are considering. > Feature wise, the ultimate edition seems to only differ in the > license check, message with the version being embedded the word > "ultimate" and the absence of the following text in the UI: "Buy the > Ultimate version to fund development". The ultimate build seems to > be limited to Mac OS and Windows only, ie it does not build on Linux > but that's only because of a macro check. It could trivially be > disabled. I think there is nothing very objectionable about that UI text, provided it's not too intrusive. Indeed, GNU programs print self-advertisements too (not asking for money, so that's perhaps a bit different, but the same principle applies). If the extra UI is an annoying nag then there should be a way to disable it but IMO you can leave it enabled by default. > Given the differences mentionned above, I prefer to just use a non ultimate > build. The only difference except version number in some help string is to > encourage users to contribute to its development by telling them to buy the > ultimate edition. They are free not to do it so I think that respects the > DFSG. Yes. So, there is no problem, I think. Personally, I would not simply disable the UI nag, even though we have legal permission to do so. Upstream would probably find it annoying. OTOH if there are actual _features_ in the "ultimate" version that aren't in the standard version, they should be enabled in the Debian package. It is OK for a Debian package to promote, to a limited extent, the reasonable agenda of its upstreams - but we should not be shipping crippleware. HTH. Ian. -- Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.