Hi Nils,
How about this text:
No license is required to download and use dcraw.c. However,
to lawfully redistribute dcraw, you must either (a) offer, at
no extra charge, full source code* for all executable files
containing RESTRICTED functions, (b) distribute this code under
some version of the GPL, (c) remove all RESTRICTED functions,
re-implement them, or copy them from an earlier, unrestricted
Revision of dcraw.c, or (d) purchase a license from the author.
The functions that process Foveon images have been RESTRICTED
since Revision 1.237. All other code remains free for all uses.
*If you have not modified dcraw.c in any way, a link to my
homepage qualifies as "full source code".
I'm not sure "some version of the GPL" is precise enough.
Are there any bugs in early GPL versions that I should know about?
Dave Coffin 9/6/2007
On Thu, Sep 06, 2007 at 10:31:57AM +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> thanks for your quick reply. I'll keep fedora-legal-list on copy,
> perhaps they want to comment.
>
> On Wed, 2007-09-05 at 20:39 -0400, dcoffin@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > Hi Nils,
> >
> > I changed the text because some customers are paranoid
> > about the letters "GPL". It seems that Debian is bothered by:
> >
> > > (a) include full source code*
> >
> > Now I don't need to exactly match the GPL, but I must
> > require something that commercial software companies would
> > never accept, without creating problems for distributors of
> > free software.
> >
> > How about changing "include" to "offer, at no extra
> > charge,"?
>
> I'm not a lawyer ;-), but the source code provisions in the GPL are a
> bit complicated -- to stay compatible, one would have to formulate
> something compatible to 32 lines of legalese in the GPL license ;-). I
> don't know about your customers, but I think an easy way to stay
> compatible to the GPL would be dual-licensing, e.g. extend the text to
> something like:
>
> "... *If you have not modified dcraw.c in any way, a link to my homepage
> qualifies as "full source code". ALTERNATIVELY, at your option, you may
> distribute the code under the conditions of the GNU [Lesser] General
> Public License Version 2[.1] [(or, at your option, any later version)]
> [continue with standard GPL blurb]"
>
> Of course, the version of the [L]GPL and whether you allow later
> versions is up to you (it's your code). Would your customers be scared
> away by that?
>
> Thanks,
> Nils
>
>
> > Dave Coffin 9/5/2007
> >
> > On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 05:08:33PM +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > > Hi Dave,
> > >
> > > I'm the Fedora/Red Hat Enterprise Linux package maintainer for dcraw and
> > > when going over the licenses of some of my packages I found that the
> > > licensing blurb of dcraw.c has changed like this ("-": old, "+": new
> > > version):
> > >
> > > --- 8< ---
> > > - Attention! Some parts of this program are restricted under the
> > > - terms of the GNU General Public License. Such code is enclosed
> > > - in "BEGIN GPL BLOCK" and "END GPL BLOCK" declarations.
> > > - Any code not declared GPL is free for all uses.
> > > + No license is required to download and use dcraw.c. However,
> > > + to lawfully redistribute this code, you must either (a) include
> > > + full source code* for all executable files containing RESTRICTED
> > > + functions, (b) remove all RESTRICTED functions, re-implement them,
> > > + or copy them from an earlier, unrestricted Revision of dcraw.c,
> > > + or (c) purchase a license from the author.
> > >
> > > - Starting in Revision 1.237, the code to support Foveon cameras
> > > - is under GPL.
> > > + The functions that process Foveon images have been RESTRICTED
> > > + since Revision 1.237. All other code remains free for all uses.
> > >
> > > - To lawfully redistribute dcraw.c, you must either (a) include
> > > - full source code for all executable files containing restricted
> > > - functions, (b) remove these functions, re-implement them, or
> > > - copy them from an earlier, non-GPL Revision of dcraw.c, or (c)
> > > - purchase a license from the author.
> > > + *If you have not modified dcraw.c in any way, a link to my
> > > + homepage qualifies as "full source code".
> > > --- >8 ---
> > >
> > > With the upcoming Fedora version 8, we want all packages' licensing
> > > terms be listed in the package (e.g. "GPLv2+" for GNU GPL Version 2 or
> > > later"). Now I'm a bit unsure about what to do about the terms of
> > > dcraw.c and whether they are still GPL compatible(*) and so forth.
> > >
> > > (*): IIRC, GPL allows distribution of a binary without source code but a
> > > written offer to ship it on request. The source code provisions in the
> > > dcraw terms might be "additional restrictions" that aren't GPL
> > > compatible.
> > >
> > > Would you please shed some light on this? I'd very much appreciate it.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance,
> > > Nils
> > > --
> > > Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx
> > > "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
> > > Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759
> > > PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
> --
> Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx
> "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
> Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759
> PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
_______________________________________________
Fedora-legal-list mailing list
Fedora-legal-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legal-list
