Source: ted Version: 2.17-1 The file "/usr/share/ted/Ted/TedDocument-en_US.rtf", which is a part of ted-common (based on this source package), contains the copying conditions which make Ted non-free.
The paragraph in its entireity: "Ted for Linux: copyright and disclaimer Ted is free software. By making Ted freely available, I want to contribute to the propagation of Linux as a viable platform for technical computer enthusiasts. As Ted is free software, I assume no responsibility for the consequences of using it. It is up to you to decide whether Ted suits your purpose or not. Ted is distributed with absolutely no warranty under the terms of the GNU Public License. If you include Ted on a CD-ROM or any other medium, or publish Ted in any other way, it would be nice to tell me. Please send me a copy of your publication or a reference. I like to see what happens to Ted and to show off to my friends. You should not publish Ted or software that is based on Ted without mentioning me as the original author in all textual documents that accompany your software. If you publish Ted, or any piece of software that is based on Ted, you must include a copy of the original Ted documentation in your distribution. The Ted documentation is part of the source code that you have to make available to respect the GPL." Objectionable clauses with comments: > You should not publish Ted or software that is based on Ted without > mentioning me as the original author in all textual documents that accompany > your software. What if my software includes Ted only as a small portion of it, and comes with twenty or thirty textual documents, describing various aspects of its operation, most of which are completely unrelated to Ted. According to this, in each of these documents I should add, "oh, and author of Ted is that Random J. Person". But even without imagining such extreme case, this condition is unacceptable, it's just like the old BSD "advertisement" clause. > If you publish Ted, or any piece of software that is based on Ted, you must > include a copy of the original Ted documentation in your distribution. This is an "additional restriction placed on distribution", and those are disallowed by GPL. And I guess that by "copy of the original" the author means no less than an unmodified copy, which alone would make that non-free, like one huge GFDL invariant section. > The Ted documentation is part of the source code that you have to make > available to respect the GPL. Complete b-s. GPL v2 says: "The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable." An attempt to re-define this to include some arbitrary human-readable documentation is ridiculous and absolutely not legitimate. With respect, Roman. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
