[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Support script exceptions

From: Paolo Bonzini
Subject: Re: Support script exceptions
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2010 15:13:03 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20100430 Fedora/3.0.4-3.fc13 Lightning/1.0b2pre Thunderbird/3.0.4

On 06/21/2010 07:33 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>  After reviewing the intended uses of these scripts, and their licensing
>  history, we believe that an exception is not really necessary to allow
>  proprietary software developers to use the scripts in the ways we expect
>  them to.  Thus, to keep our licensing as simple as possible, we think
>  that the best thing to do for these scripts would be to remove their
>  exceptions entirely -- and then upgrade them to GPLv3 while we're at it.

What if users modify these scripts and distribute the modified scripts
along with their non-free packages?  How is that expected to work?

That constitutes conveying a modified version of the scripts. I think it is fine as long as the scripts are still in the preferred form for modification, i.e. no obfuscation.

What Brett is saying is simply that using these scripts in some work doesn't make that work a derivative of them.

> we think it would be appropriate to provide
> documentation explaining our position that even without it, proprietary
> software developers can still use these scripts.  If we can keep it
> short enough, that statement might even appear in the headers, in place
> of the exception.  That would still be better for us because we wouldn't
> have to worry quite *as* much about making sure the language was legally
> precise, etc.

Yes, I think such a statement would be prudent, if it is decided that an
exception is not needed.

Strongly seconded.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]