Allan McRae <allan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 28/01/10 00:31, Joerg Schilling wrote: > > The GPL claims to be a valid OSS license. > > > > In order to become a valid OSS license, a license must not only follow the > > weak rules from the FSF but also follow the more stringent rules from the > > OpenSource initiative: > > > > http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php > > > > The OSI did mark the GPL as a non-free license some years ago because some > > people from the FSF did write strange claims about the GPL. As a reaction, the > > FSF replied that the GPL has to be interpreted in a way that makes it compliant > > to: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php > > > > We for this reason may safely asume that the GPL of course allows to publish > > two independent OSS projects in a single archive. See OSS definition > > paragraph 9. > > This is where your argument fails and it has been the stumbling block in > all previous debates on this issue. > > The GPL may allow separate projects to be distributed in the one > tarball, but it considers scripts necessary to build a project part of > the same project. This is the issue. > > You claim they are separate projects; others claim the GPL does not > allow that. Your evidence that this is allowable is a mysterious > private email that apparently says all is OK... > > That is almost insurmountable. If a lawyer provided a statement saying > that it was legal and was prepared provide a defense in case of any > issues, then we may be able to talk about this again. > > Until that point, nothing productive can be achieved discussing this > issue, so I will not continue reading this thread. > > Allan
