ok@cs.mu.oz.au (Richard O'Keefe) (10/19/89)
In article <2013@prune.bbn.com>, rsalz@uunet.uu.net (Rich Salz) writes: > Submitted-by: Mark James <jamesm@cpsc.UCalgary.CA> > Posting-number: Volume 20, Issue 30 > Archive-name: reactivekbd/part02 This program includes a copy of David MacKenzie's "Getopt for GNU". That is covered by the infamous copyleft, which states in part (quoted from the posting) > X b) cause the whole of any work that you distribute or publish, > X that in whole or in part contains or is a derivative of this > X program or any part thereof, to be licensed at no charge to all > X third parties on terms identical to those contained in this > X License Agreement (except that you may choose to grant more > X extensive warranty protection to third parties, at your option). > X 5. If you wish to incorporate parts of this program into other free > Xprograms whose distribution conditions are different, write to the Free > XSoftware Foundation at 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139. We have not yet > Xworked out a simple rule that can be stated here, but we will often permit > Xthis. We will be guided by the two goals of preserving the free status of > Xall derivatives of our free software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of > Xsoftware. The whole RK program does not appear to be covered by a licence "on terms identical to" the copyleft. Perhaps the author has an exemption from the FSF. Another possibility is that I may have completely misunderstood the effect of the copyleft. It would be better to use Henry Spencer's "getopt", as that is not covered by a restrictive licence. Might it not be a good idea to have a gnu.sources group, and ensure that stuff with copylefts went to that group and stuff that people could use went to comp.sources.* groups?
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (10/20/89)
ok@cs.mu.oz.au (Richard O'Keefe) writes: |This program includes a copy of David MacKenzie's "Getopt for GNU". |That is covered by the infamous copyleft, which states in part |(quoted from the posting) |> X b) cause the whole of any work that you distribute or publish, |> X that in whole or in part contains or is a derivative of this |> X program or any part thereof, to be licensed at no charge to all |> X third parties on terms identical to those contained in this |> X License Agreement (except that you may choose to grant more |> X extensive warranty protection to third parties, at your option). The GNU usage license (which is probably invalid as a license) also states: Mere aggregation of another independent work with the Program (or its derivative) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of these terms. It could be argued that this is what is being done. In any case, if anyone thinks that the author's code is going to forcibly come under the GNU license because he included GNU getopt, or that GNU can collect damages, then they are fooling themselves. The very best they could do is require him not to publish their stuff, and I seriously doubt they could get a court to order that. Sean -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean *** Copyright 1989 by Sean Casey. Only non-profit redistribution permitted. *** ``So if you weight long enough, you'll get your packets, right?''