Dear Tom!
The sentence you quoted, tries to briefly explain the GPL, and obviously fails
to do so accurately. Though they state before, the GPLv2 applies.
I'm curious: Would you regard it free if this sentence were not there?
Volker
Am Dienstag, 18. Oktober 2011, 16:13:17 schrieb Tom Callaway:
On 10/17/2011 03:07 PM, Volker Fröhlich wrote:
> The headers in the various file mention GPLv2. With all the rubble in the
> license, around mentioning it was GPLv2, is this certainly free software?
No, this license mess is non-free. In it, it says:
"and the GPL-based source code must be made available upon request"
A free software license cannot force a user to distribute source code
except in limited circumstances (when a corresponding binary is
distributed, or deployed as a network service). See the FSF's
comments on the original nonfree Apple Public Source License:
https://gnu.org/philosophy/historical-apsl.html
There are other areas that make this beast non-free, but this is perhaps
the most glaring.
~tom
==
Fedora Project