Re: Copyright question: GPL patches for non-GPL packages (fwd)

On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Maarten Boekhold wrote:

Hi,

I read this message on the debian development list. Thought it might be
of interest to scrappy on the PostODBC thingie...

Damn, to say I hate copyrights isn't saying enough :) Okay, I
guess the first thing to note is that PostODBC actually falls under the
LGPL vs the GPL, which appears to have slightly more lax restrictions on
how it gets included with other packages...

Now, with that in mind, should we remove the PostODBC stuff from
the interfaces directory an dmove it to the contrib directory? Or remove
it all together? Or leave it where it is?

Maarten

_____________________________________________________________________________
| Maarten Boekhold, Faculty of Electrical Engineering TU Delft, NL |
| Computer Architecture and Digital Technique section |
| M.Boekhold@et.tudelft.nl |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 23:47:23 +0100
From: David Frey <david@eos.lugs.ch>
To: debian-devel@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Copyright question: GPL patches for non-GPL packages

On Thu, Jan 22 1998 13:18 +0100 Andreas Jellinghaus writes:

if you want to mix gpl'ed software with other software, that other
software's licence may not conflict with the gpl.

for example, you can mix software with bsd style licencens (or x window
licence) with GPL'ed software, becuase these two licences do not
conflict. the mix will be under GPL'ed.

[...]

example: this is allowed
bsd + gpl

[...]
I recall reading once ago, that the standard BSD license is incompatible
with the GPL because of point 4.:

4. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors
may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
without specific prior written permission.

which is an additional restriction, which is not allowed under the GPL:

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.

So people who wanted to have both licenses applicable on their code,
cancelled the fourth paragraph of the original BSD license...

David

--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .

Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org

On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Maarten Boekhold wrote:

Hi,

I read this message on the debian development list. Thought it might be
of interest to scrappy on the PostODBC thingie...

Damn, to say I hate copyrights isn't saying enough :) Okay, I
guess the first thing to note is that PostODBC actually falls under the
LGPL vs the GPL, which appears to have slightly more lax restrictions on
how it gets included with other packages...

Now, with that in mind, should we remove the PostODBC stuff from
the interfaces directory an dmove it to the contrib directory? Or remove
it all together? Or leave it where it is?

Leave it. The posting talks about intermixing source code. In our
case, it is separate, and that is enough. BSDI ships GNU utilities, but
does not have the entire OS under GPL, and that is GPL, not LGPL.

--
Bruce Momjian
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us

On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Bruce Momjian wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Maarten Boekhold wrote:

Hi,

I read this message on the debian development list. Thought it might be
of interest to scrappy on the PostODBC thingie...

Damn, to say I hate copyrights isn't saying enough :) Okay, I
guess the first thing to note is that PostODBC actually falls under the
LGPL vs the GPL, which appears to have slightly more lax restrictions on
how it gets included with other packages...

Now, with that in mind, should we remove the PostODBC stuff from
the interfaces directory an dmove it to the contrib directory? Or remove
it all together? Or leave it where it is?

Leave it. The posting talks about intermixing source code. In our
case, it is separate, and that is enough. BSDI ships GNU utilities, but
does not have the entire OS under GPL, and that is GPL, not LGPL.

True enough...FreeBSD ships a bunch of GPL stuff as well, but its
core kernel is still under Berkeley :)

Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org

The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> wrote:

Now, with that in mind, should we remove the PostODBC stuff from
the interfaces directory an dmove it to the contrib directory? Or remove
it all together? Or leave it where it is?

Probably the safest way would be to put it in contrib, and maybe leave a
README in interfaces/PostODBC informing people of its being in contrib.

Hannu

The Hermit Hacker <scrappy@hub.org> wrote:

Now, with that in mind, should we remove the PostODBC stuff from
the interfaces directory an dmove it to the contrib directory? Or remove
it all together? Or leave it where it is?

Probably the safest way would be to put it in contrib, and maybe leave a
README in interfaces/PostODBC informing people of its being in contrib.

Leave it in interfaces.

--
Bruce Momjian
maillist@candle.pha.pa.us

On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Maarten Boekhold wrote:

Hi,

I read this message on the debian development list. Thought it might be
of interest to scrappy on the PostODBC thingie...

Damn, to say I hate copyrights isn't saying enough :) Okay, I
guess the first thing to note is that PostODBC actually falls under the
LGPL vs the GPL, which appears to have slightly more lax restrictions on
how it gets included with other packages...

Now, with that in mind, should we remove the PostODBC stuff from
the interfaces directory an dmove it to the contrib directory? Or remove
it all together? Or leave it where it is?

Maarten

Subject: Re: Copyright question: GPL patches for non-GPL packages

if you want to mix gpl'ed software with other software, that other
software's licence may not conflict with the gpl.

for example, you can mix software with bsd style licencens (or x window
licence) with GPL'ed software, becuase these two licences do not
conflict. the mix will be under GPL'ed.

As the preamble to the LGPL says, LGPL and GPL are completely different --- they
share the same intention (to let people use software), but are completely
different licences. Do not interpret anything from GPL as applying to LGPL or
vice versa. Read the licence which applies and work out what it says.

Andrew

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Andrew C.R. Martin University College London
EMAIL: (Work) martin@biochem.ucl.ac.uk (Home) andrew@stagleys.demon.co.uk
URL: http://www.biochem.ucl.ac.uk/~martin
Tel: (Work) +44(0)171 419 3890 (Home) +44(0)1372 275775