[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: New Package: x2x

On Mon, 2005-06-20 at 13:27 -0400, Jack Neely wrote:
> > * The upstream code is not in compliance with the terms of the GPL and
> >   upstream authors should be alerted to this issue.
> >         
> I do not believe this is the case.  Can someone confirm?
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of
it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute
such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided
that you also meet all of these conditions:
        b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that
        in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or
        any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all
        third parties under the terms of this License.
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and
can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on
the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this
License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire
whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Since x2x.c (which contains main()) is the file that has the GPL
attached to it, I think the software definitely falls under this.
Perhaps the upstream author knows that he is not infringing due to
talking with the winvnc author/maintainer or because the license is
stuck on x2x.c but doesn't actually contain any winvnc code anymore but
it's not in the package so we don't know.

If that's the case, the license issue needs to be clarified by the
upstream author.  It would be best in a file in the distributed tarball
that we can include via %doc.

> > Question: Should we add a GPL Copying file to the package documentation?
> >         
> Is this absolutely nesicary for each and every GPL'd package?  I nope
> not.  :-)
$ locate COPYING |grep /usr/share/doc |wc -l

I recall at least two threads on having to include the COPYING file in
every GPL licensed package in the past.  So far the answer has been yes.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]