Le 18 Janvier 2006 03:52, Mathieu Bouchard a écrit :
Maybe it's time to ask for advice from the Free Software Foundation and/or other similar organisms?
I did. Two times. Here's the answers I received from the FSF.
12 days ago:
Subject: [gnu.org #265332] Fwd: political terms in free software licenses Date: 7 Janvier 2006 20:20 From: "Zak Greant via RT" licensing@fsf.org To: (my email address)
Dear Marc,
I read this page about political terms in free software licenses : http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/20050211.html
I'm questionning the validity of a free software license; It's a "Standard Improved BSD License", with this statement added at the beginning: "NOT FOR MILITARY OR REPRESSIVE USE !!!"
Does including this comment in the license make it incompatible with the GPL or any other free software license?
This statement conflicts with the first freedom of the Free Software definition: "The freedom to run the program, for any purpose"
You can read the full Free Software definition here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
-- Zak Greant
IMPORTANT: THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. IN MANY JURISDICTIONS, LEGAL ADVICE MAY ONLY BE PROVIDED TO YOU BY A LAWYER LICENSED TO PRACTICE IN THE JURISDICTION AND WHO HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY RETAINED TO PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES TO YOU.
Then this morning:
Subject: Re: [gnu.org #265332] Fwd: political terms in free software licenses Date: 19 Janvier 2006 08:50 From: "Zak Greant via RT" licensing@fsf.org To: (my email address)
On Jan 17, 2006, at 20:40EST (CA), Marc Lavallée via RT wrote:
Hello again Zak.
This software (PiDiP) includes source code from another GPL software (effecTV). The first version of PiDiP was a port of effecTV, compiled as a plugin for a multimedia software (PureData). Does PiDiP automatically inherit the GPL from effecTV? If not, is the PiDiP license (the new SIBSD with the political comment) valid, even if it's not free?
Thanks again for your help.
If PiDiP is derived from the GPL-licensed effecTV software, then PiDiP should also be GPL licensed (instead of BSD licensed with a non- Free modification). The licensing seems invalid.
Cheers!
zak
Le 18 Janvier 2006 14:58, Hans-Christoph Steiner a écrit :
From my research, I think the issue is settled: PiDiP must be available under the GNU GPL because of PiDiP's dependecies on PDP and effectv.
Yep!
Le 18 Janvier 2006 13:35, Kyle Klipowicz a écrit :
Isn't it possible that what Yves inserted into his license was really just a joke? Frank's comment about the point of contention being listed before the GNU preamble supports this.
That's more like a political and/or artistic statement in the form of an invalid license. Note that the license of the Debian package is GPL, and that its maintainer (Pablo Martín) created a derivative from the latest version (with a cool xine extension). -- Marc