On 14-May-2002 Santiago Vila wrote:
>> Software that is developed by any person or entity for an Apple
>> Operating System ("Apple OS-Developed Software"), including but not
>> limited to Apple and third party printer drivers, filters, and
>> backends for an Apple Operating System, that is linked to the CUPS
>> imaging library or based on any sample filters or backends provided
>> with CUPS shall not be considered to be a derivative work or
>> collective work based on the CUPS program and is exempt from the
>> mandatory source code release clauses of the GNU GPL.
>
> I agree that a license may exempt certain parties from some requirements,
> but not to the point of saying something which clearly is a derivative
> work is not (so I would say the wording should be improved here).
>
> In either case, GPL says:
>
> 7. If, [] conditions are imposed on you [] that contradict the
> conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions
> of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy
> simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other
> pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute
> the Program at all. [...]
>
> This means if we mix CUPS code under the new GPL+exception license and
> ordinary GPL code, the result may only be distributed under the
> unmodified GPL or not distributed at all, which means you can't send
> CUPS maintainers a GPLed patch anymore...
>
Indeed. The CUPS people really need to dual license CUPS if they
want to give Apple this exception.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
