On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:23:45AM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 00:23 -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
Does having it sit in the source (and not build it) present any
problems? I don't think so, since the BSD-4 stuff does not mix with
the GPL-2 stuff.

Its kind of grey if this is ok.  The license seems to say that the
advertising clause would only take effect if the file is used in the
software, not just distributed as is.  But its not very clear to me.

Your question is right, Felipe, but the problem is not GPL compatibility (which kicks in only for binary code). The problem is with DFSG not allowing to redistribute code containing the advertising clause of BSD-4.

Much better would be if upstream (Burkhard) used one of the New BSD or
GPL'ed version of this file, like:


We _must_ rip out the BSD-4 licensed code from our source. We _can_ simply rip it out, and then add a Debian-specific patch reapplying one of those alternative files, but would be much better if upstream did it.

 - Jonas

 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to