| Re: [hatari-devel] The IPF license |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More lists.tuxfamily.org/hatari-devel Archives
]
Am Sat, 21 Dec 2013 17:33:31 +0200
schrieb Eero Tamminen <oak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Hi,
>
> On lauantai 21 joulukuu 2013, Thomas Huth wrote:
[...]
> > Since adding such an exemption is a major change anyway, I'd like to
> > ask all here who contributed to Hatari whether this change is OK for
> > everybody. Please read through the exemption carefully and provide
> > your feedback and concerns!
>
> I'm OK, with the intent, but the added text is a bit unclear. In
> private, people can combine Hatari with whatever they want to,
> copyright concerns only copying/distribution of the combined work.
>
> I would also clarify what kind of modifications are OK for IPF.
>
>
> I would change the new text thus:
>
> > In addition, as a special exception, the copyright holders of
> > Hatari give
> you
> > permission to combine Hatari with free software programs or
> > libraries that
> are
>
> -> ...give permission to copy/distribute Hatari combined with...
Actually, that wording is the original suggestion from the FSF, see
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs - so I'd
prefer not to change this if possible.
> > released under the GNU LGPL and with code included in the standard
> > release of the IPF support library (a.k.a. libcapsimage, see
> > http://www.softpres.org/ for more information) under the Software
> > Preservation Society Licence Agreement as it has been defined for
> > IPF library version 4.2 (linking against modified versions of the
> > library is also allowed as long as the license did not change).
>
> -> ...as it has been defined for IPF library version 4.2. Linking
> against modified versions of the IPF library is also allowed, as long
> as neither the license, nor purpose of the library (accessing special
> format disk images), was changed.
Ok, that makes sense, I'll change that if nobody else objects.
> Question: should we add exception for any freeware disk image library,
> regardless of whether it has advertizing clause (like AROS and other
> old BSD license based ones have) or requires non-profit distribution?
>
> Or should we wait until there's support for next disk format?
No, thanks, I certainly do not want to have something like that in
Hatari. We should judge each case individually instead.
Thomas