"GPL", not "GLP". (I assumed it was a typo before, but you're consistently spelling it incorrectly.)
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 10:15:56AM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > So now, we can discuss the rest of the matter. But keep in mind the > precedent point, please. Could you repeat what the "precendent point" is? I missed it. (inserted important but omitted quotes) > Richard Braakman wrotes: >>Note that this is not so much a legal question as a question of >>software freedom. The only legal argument that would apply would >>go like this: > > > 1. The GPL is DFSG-free by definition > > 2. The author is interpreting GPL 2(c) in a legally valid way > > 3. Therefore, the condition is also DFSG-free > > That's my point of view. We have judge Mr.F.Burzi and found him guilty. > But he is legally innocent. We have decided this way due to our moral > conception of free software. We already have found a bug on GLP, as > Richard pointed before. So we need a new version of GLP (at least > something positive coming out from this flame). That's just a possible argument; there's no consensus on these points. Most directly, there's no consensus on #2. The opposite, actually; I don't recall seeing anyone actually asserting that this interpretation of the GPL is correct at all. (David, could we get a position on the "must attach GPL blurb to every output page" interpretation from the FSF, so we can resolve this question?) If #2 is incorrect (and the interpretation is simply bogus), then there are lots of problems (as he's apparently not the sole copyright holder) and the package should probably not be in non-free, either. If it's unclear, and the author is simply stretching the definition in a non-free way, then we want to discourage that interpretation. (However, this is a social reason not to distribute it, not a legal one, and I'd just hope that you're feeling responsible. :) If it's unclear, or if it is, in fact, a reasonable interpretation, then you're probably right in that there's a license bug, too, but we aren't there yet. (#1 is also questionable, but that's a tangent that's been discussed recently--search recent archives for "grandfather"--so I won't go there.) > But in the meantime > phpnuke should have the right to stay in main, as it it technically GLP > compilant, we liked or not. No software has any "right" to be in main to begin with. -- Glenn Maynard
