On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 03:03:53AM -0800, Sylvestre Ledru wrote: > Hello, > > From it last few releases, geogebra is released under GPL with a non > commercial > clause. > > Besides the fact that it seems invalid, it also ships Jlatexmath (which I co > maintain) which is published under the GPL v2. > > As you can see on the Debian thread ( http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/ > bugreport.cgi?bug=692728 ), we contacted and exchanged with upstream. > > Since they didn't move, we contacted them privately to get more information > and > they replied with: > "we've had our licence etc details checked by an experienced legal team and > it's OK. Hopefully this is clear: http://www.geogebra.org/cms/license#FAQ"; > In particular, first sentence of their license ( http://www.geogebra.org/cms/ > license ) is non-free > "You are free to copy, distribute and transmit GeoGebra for non-commercial > purposes" > > Do you think their "experienced legal team" is right?
Section 7 of the GPL-3 (if it's not -3, there's a clause in other versions of the GPL as well) / | All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further | restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you | received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is | governed by this License along with a term that is a further | restriction, you may remove that term. [ snip ] \ Sounds like you can ignore their non-commercial clause. I'm sure their legal team thinks this is A-OK by them. Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte <paul...@debian.org> | Proud Debian Developer : :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
