On 22-Apr-00, 12:22 (CDT), Florian Lohoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The relation might be from "on earth", "on same spindle", "same filesystem", > "same archive", "same ftp server", "same directory", "compiled with > same compiler" etc - All these are inacceptable as a "contamination" > clause and its clearly to be not allowed after DFSG in the common > sense of Par 9. But: There might be clauses like "distributed > under the terms of this license" which is definitly a restriction > to another program and though matches the contaminaton clause. > > Am just saying: "Hey - i see space for misinterpretation" and from > my discussion on #debian.de nobody could clear this up and so i am > asking here - And still - I dont see the issue cleared. It sounds > completely idiotic the GPL not compatible with DFSG but think > on it.
It's been thought on several times by many people who know a lot more about law than you or I. Believe it or not, US law[1] does not forbid the use of common sense and determination of intent when evaluating contracts and licenses. A reading of the complete GPL, along with RMS's other writings, not to mention the gigabytes of commentary and clarification that have been written since the GPL's release make it clear that GPL is intended to apply only to the licencsed software itself and derived works. The definition of "derived work" is pretty clear from copyright law. How that definition applies to software *is* fuzzy (the whole shared library issue), but there is no question that it might apply to independent works. Likewise, the intent of the DFSG is clearly to allow the combined distribution of independent works on the same media or from the same (virtual) location, while preserving the right of those works to be licensed as their author(s) choose. Reading the "contamination not allowed" clause and the GPL in the way that you you keeping insisting in doing, after it has been explained several times, is what is idiotic. The issue can't be clear if you won't listen. Steve
