On Fri, 1 Jun 2007 14:31:33 -0500 John Goerzen wrote: > On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 09:18:56PM +0200, Francesco Poli wrote: > > > The author of gpsbabel does not believe there is an issue here, > > > and your bug report did not document why you believe the coldsync > > > license to be incompatible with the GPL. > > > > It's claimed to be the (original) Artistic License[1] which is a > > GPL-incompatible license[2] > > But *WHY* is it incompatible?
Because it includes restrictions which are not present in the GNU GPL v2. For instance, section 4 of the Artistic License states: | 4. You may distribute the programs of this Package in object code or | executable form, provided that you do at least ONE of the following: | | a) distribute a Standard Version of the executables and library | files, together with instructions (in the manual page or | equivalent) on where to get the Standard Version. | | b) accompany the distribution with the machine-readable source of | the Package with your modifications. | | c) give non-standard executables non-standard names, and clearly | document the differences in manual pages (or equivalent), together | with instructions on where to get the Standard Version. | | d) make other distribution arrangements with the Copyright Holder. This does *not* allow me to distribute a modified Package in object code or executable form accompanying it with a written offer to provide the modified source (as detailed in clause 3b of GPLv2), without being forced to distribute the Standard Version, or accompany the distribution with the modified source, or change executable names, or contact the Copyright Holder. This is something that is permitted by the GNU GPL v2, but not by the Artistic License, and the GNU GPL v2 insists that any part of a work based on a GPL'ed one must be available under the terms of the GNU GPL v2 (see clause 2b of GPLv2), and no further restrictions may be added (see section 6 of GPLv2). As a consequence, you cannot distribute a work based on a GPLv2-licensed work and on an Artistic-licensed work, and comply with both licenses. By definition, this means that the two licenses are incompatible with each other. See also http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/1999/01/msg00035.html > > Did you read the author's reply? Yes, I did, but it doesn't look like a rebuttal: he does not see a problem, anyway the problem exists, IMO. -- http://frx.netsons.org/doc/nanodocs/testing_workstation_install.html Need to read a Debian testing installation walk-through? ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4
pgpJ4ex2pNOMA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
