asger added,
>I iterated,
> > I *really* think we need more than the web page says. Particularly,
> > the sections of the body which we specifically disclaim.
> > I believe the solution is a clarification that provides:
> > 1) the legal reasons that we aren't GPL.
> > 2) That the clarification is not a *change* in the license
> > 3) The sections of the body that we disclaim, and possibly (my
> > prefference) the preamble and postscript.
> As I recall, you did post such a clarification on this list
> a while ago, but I've lost it, and I didn't see much talk
> about it.
I don't know if that was due to universal agreement, or apathy. BUt
there was discussion of where to put "muttonhead" :)
> I suggest that you find the mail in your archive, trim it
> up such that it is ready to stuff on top of the LICENSING file,
> and then we do if, unless somebody disagrees.
> It's fine to do 1)-3) with me.
Here it is, with modifications from earlier in the week. I propose
that the license in the root directory be this file, which references
the GPL pushed a level down, so that it can not be mistaken for the
license.
"While LyX has been released nominally under the GPL in the past, it
has in fact never been truly GPL. Particularly, it has always been
linked to a closed source library. While some have taken a view that
such actions violate the GPL, this is a legal impossibility. The law
is quite clear that the release of the software by the original authors
and copyright holders changed the licenses.
"Rather than leaving the issue to be debated, the following
clarifications are given. This is *not* a change of license, but a
clarification of the license that LyX has always used. All patches
submitted to LyX fall under this same license.
"1) LyX is quasi-GPL software. The terms of the GPL apply save where
they conflict with this statement.
"2) There is no limitation on the license or nature of any software,
source, binary, library, or other, that may be linked to LyX, or to
which LyX may be linked. Particularly, the second full paragraph of
section 2, from 'These requirements apply to the modified work'
through 'who wrote it.' is rejected in its entirety.
"3) There is no limitation on combining LyX source code with code
subject to any other license, provided that the LyX source remains
under this same license. Particularly, Section 3 of the GPL is
rejected in its entirety. To redistribute a modified version of LyX,
the entire source code of the modified LyX must be made available under
the terms of this license or such other licenses as apply to portions
of the original or modified code.
"4) Any other clause or interpretation of the GPL limiting the
combination of other software of any type and LyX is rejected in its
entirety, provided that the LyX code and modifications to the LyX
source code remains under this same license, or such other licenses as
apply to portions of the original or modified code.
"5) Nothing in this statement purports to alter or interpret the
license of any other software. Any combination of other software with
LyX must also meet the requirements of that software."
Although I'd prefer to replace the "legal impossibility" with "only a
complete muttonhead could conclude", but I suppose that would be
impolitic :) I think it's john who really wants to use "muttonhead."
While the way I've worded 3 & 4 could give us BSDish sections, in which
it would not be necessary to distribute source for additions, It's
not immediately clear that there's another way to do this that
accommodates xforms.
Does anyone have the whole archive of patches? It may be worth seeing
if there's anyone not still in contact that has any copyright claims,
and switch to the artistic license (but not for 1.0.0).
rick
> I sent the mail to the debain guy, because I noticed that
> the LyX problem was "holding back" Debian 1.3, because they
> judged it to be a "critical" bug. (Politics...)
> Hopefully, we can resolve this problem this way.
>
> I wanted to fix the web pages on la1ad today for the 1.0
> release, but unfortunately, I can't telnet into the box
> anymore! I don't know what happened (Lgb?), but the fact
> is that I do not have a snapshot to work from, and thus
> I haven't managed to do any work.
>
> What is worse: I don't have time to do a complete
> overhaul of the web pages as intended before the 1st
> of February...
>
> Now, I'll start working on the click policy stuff.
>
> Greets,
>
> Asger
>
--
