| |||||||||||||
Rosen also thinks GPL needs "I agree" click-throughRosen also thinks GPL needs "I agree" click-throughPosted Jul 27, 2004 21:56 UTC (Tue) by s_cargo (guest, #10473)In reply to: Rosen also thinks GPL needs "I agree" click-through by piman Parent article: Choosing an open source license (NewsForge) "spot": The only component which was in question is elfutils's libelf, which is GPL... "piman": No, it's not. elfutils is under the OSL... It is apparently only relevant what libelf's license is, not elfutils. http://zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/2004-April/009785.html
(Log in to post comments)
Rosen also thinks GPL needs "I agree" click-through Posted Jul 28, 2004 0:15 UTC (Wed) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] I just downloaded the source to RPM from http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/2/SRPMS/rpm-4.3.1-0.3.src.rpm. (Incidentally, it's very difficult to find RPM 4.3's source, and I couldn't find it at all in non-RPM form.) I also grabbed RPM 4.2 from RH9.RPM 4.2's libelf is pretty clearly under the OSL; every file in rpm-4.2/elfutils/libelf has an OSL header, and rpm-4.2/elfutils/COPYING is a copy of the OSL. So, distributing Fedora Core 1 infringes on Red Hat's copyright, which IMO is more than enough to justify the "Larry Rosen considered harmful" comments above, and a serious problem on Red Hat's part for not checking licenses before releasing. RPM 4.3 does not include elfutils/libelf, so I got it separately (again from FC2). Now I find that libelf is licensed under the GPL (hooray). However, other parts of elfutils are licensed under the OSL and link to libelf. So now, RPM is fine; it's just all the rest of elfutils that can't be distributed. The exact software causing the problem has changed, but the nature of the problem hasn't.
|
|||||||||||||