inode0 wrote:
On 3/11/07, John Summerfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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).
Does this file offend Debian or is it in gettext-doc?
I'm not aware that Debian has an opinion on this; there's bug report
which should, I think, be referred to Debian Legal, but the package
maintainer hasn't done anything with it (except, maybe, refer it to the
authors).
When Debian Legal sees it I expect either a quick "we can't ship that,
it doesn't comply with DFSG" or a long debate and the same decision.
Look at the debate on cdrecord/cdrtools, for example. I note SUSE has
gone Debian's way on that one.
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.
I don't think that is true. The fact that the FSF asserts a copyright
does not prevent you from redistributing it under the GPL as it was
distributed to you. That is how the GPL works isn't, the copyright
holder grants you the rights enumerated in the GPL?!
As I understand it, if FSF asserts a copyright, I cannot distribute it
under any terms, unless there is a further permission to do so. I don't
think "public domain" is that further permission.
The best resolution would be for FSF to follow its own advice on how to
licence software under the GPL:-)
I don't disagree with this, but there is a whole lot to look at and
surely things slip though the cracks. I imagine they stay in the
cracks often until someone who cares, like you perhaps, reports it to
In this case, it looks like a deliberate effort to ship under a
different licence: if it's GPL or LGPL then software build from the
examples and distributed must also be distributed under GPL or LGPL (maybe).
Public domain allows it to be used in propretary software, LGPL allows
proprietary software to be linked against it.
--
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
