Hi Jan,
Thanks for taking some time from PGSQL to comment!
On Mar 17, 2004, at 06:36, Jan Wieck wrote:
> Zak Greant wrote:
>> [...] 1. You obey the GNU General Public License in all respects for
>> the Program and
>> the Derivative Work, except for identifiable sections of that work
>> which are
>> not derived from the Program, and which can reasonably be considered
>> independent and separate works in themselves,
>> 2. You distribute all identifiable sections of the Derivative Work
>> which are
>> not derived from the Program, and which can reasonably be considered
>> independent
>
> "reasonably be considered" is a bit ... um ... vague. If push comes to
> shove who's is it to define that in a court room?
I am not a lawyer, so take my opinions here with a grain of salt.
My understanding is that only the court can settle what reasonable is.
> I have a hard time understanding how that will work then. If I have
> for example a fulltext search document indexing system that uses
> MySQL, and which is open source and free and distributed under the BSD
> license, then I can bundle it with the MySQL client libraries and add
> them to the install packages, right?
Right.
> The problem here is that the BSD license now allows integration into
> commercial closed source applications shipped in binary form only. So
> someone can grab a binary package of a BSD product and include that
> into the installer of their proprietary commercial application and we
> BSD license communities don't care.
>
> I think if that is not intended use under FOSS, what is needed here is
> a special tag added to those bundles, which has to appear right next
> to the License name wherever it is mentioned. Something like these
> labels found on Airline snack bagies reading "warning, may contain
> nuts".
heh. Funny analogy and good point. I do not believe that we would want
to be implicitly encouraging people to break our license. I will add
another ticket to the system.
Cheers!
--zak
