Re: [Qucs-devel] Distribution of non-GPL models with GPL Software (Was: Closed bugs)

[David B. <br...@de...>]

"Getz, Robin" <Rob...@an...> writes:

> Adding the debian maintainer, and debian-science list to make sure there aren't distribution objections before I start verifying everything.
>
> Some background:
> I would like to include some vendor specific SPICE models with Qucs, which are not under the GPL, but a license which (I hope) to be compliant to the DFSG.
>

Speaking only for my self, I don't see a problem with shipping DFSG-free [0]
licensed data with GPL code.  As long as the code runs fine without the
models in question, I guess it is pretty clearly not linked.

[quote of proposed license]

>> Any changes beyond the above (which may affect performance or
>> function of the model) are permitted, but must be distributed as a
>> "patch file" alongside the original, unmodified spice model.

At first I thought this completely in the spirit of DFSG 4, and thus
fine from a Debian policy point of view. But on second thought I'm not
so sure.  I'm not sure exactly how to apply "The license must explicitly
permit distribution of software built from modified source code." to
this case.  I guess it would be OK if the license permitted modified
files as long as the original and a patch were also included, although
that makes the patch a bit redundant.

Maybe somebody else has more experience with e.g. data sets and can
suggest an existing license which might be suitable. This is almost
always preferable to creating a new license.

d

[0] http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines