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

Re: Octave-forge and legal issues

Matthew Miller wrote:

On Mon, Apr 25, 2005 at 05:23:09PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

2. Create a modified source tarball with the offending code removed. This would be easy, but the source wouldn't match the upstream source.

This has already been done for some packages (e.g. xmms, gstreamer-
plugins), and AFAIK is acceptable.

... unless the sources are GPL'ed. Not shipping the original sources
would violate the GPL.

Um, if they're not commercially-distributable, they're not GPL'd. I don't
see anything in the GPL that says you must distribute the sources in the
exact same tarball as comes from upstream -- in fact, part of the point of
the GPL is that you *don't* have to do that.

This is all true...

I hope all of you are discussing this hypothetically at this point and not in regards to octave-forge. This is a dead issue with regard to octave-forge because the original GPL label in the spec file was based on an erroneous assumption by the packager who is very embarrased by his mistake and has corrected it :) (See my previous post on this).

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