inode0 wrote:
On 3/11/07, John Summerfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm hoping RH is still paying attention to this list....
Ok, but the gettext package upstream is clearly distributed under the
GPL Versioin 2 or later. So what again are you worried about? If the
piece in question incorrectly includes a copyright notice by the FSF I
don't see a problem and if it incorrectly includes a public domain
statement I don't see a problem. Either way it could be redistributed,
right? Either way you could make derivative works form it, right?
It's not that clear; it's quite common for files to have different
licences from that for the overall package. The kernel is a good example
of this, much of it is explicitly GPL 2.0, some dual-licenced, and some
has acutely offended Debian by not having source (firmware blobs for
example).
Then I recall Red Hat Linux is licenced under the GPL, but not all
components are.
If the file I mentioned earlier did not contain the public domain
assertion, nobody other than the FSF would be permitted to distribute
it: I'm fairly sure of that.
The best resolution would be for FSF to follow its own advice on how to
licence software under the GPL:-)
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please do not reply off-list
_______________________________________________
rhelv5-beta-list mailing list
rhelv5-beta-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-beta-list
