On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 02:45:12PM -0300, Humberto Massa scribbled: Do Cc: me on the replies, thank you [snip] > > It's simple - how is it possible that most licenses used by free > >software are incompatible [1] with GPL and yet debian mixes them in many > >projects > >it distributes (like mozilla, php, apache to name the most prominent ones). > > > > > The GPL-compatibitily problem only arises in the case you *link* Like in the case of mozilla linking against libfreetype6? > something with something else. _Any_ DFSG-free license permits you to: > bundle and distribute differently licensed things together, _as long as_ > they are not derived works. GPL further defines linkage as deriving for > the purpose of licensing. So that would make mozilla in conflict with GPL since some files in mozilla are NPL, some MPL and some GPL. That makes _parts_ of mozille code non-compatible with freetype6 which is distributed under GPL/FTL with FTL being incompatible with GPL. So, what in this case? > >What are the rules to freely (as in freedom) use the other licenses which > >are incompatible with GPL and to remain compatible with GPL without being > >forced to use it in your own projects which you don't want to license under > >GPL/LGPL? > > > My rules of thumb are: > 1. in doubt, GPL it. I'd rather public-domain it, really... precisely to avoid having to wonder whether it is compatible with openssl, apache, php, nspr/nss and whatever else... > 2. if it is a library and I want proprietary software to use it, I use > LGPL or the 2-clause BSD. > 3. _do not_ invent a new license. I'm not going to, just trying to understand why make your life harder by using GPL (which may lead to having to hire a lawyer somewhere in future to defend yourself) > 4. in the special cases of perl, python, ruby? stuff, distribute "under > the same terms as XXX itself". Which _may_ make it incompatible with GPL. For instance, if a hypotetical PHP module (distributed under the PHP license which is incompatible with GPL - thus it breaks the GPL terms) links against libreadline, then it breaks the GPL. This is just insane. > > >Does one have to obtain some kind of exemption from any of the "sides"? > > > > > sides? Yes, the OpenSSL folks are one side and the FSF folks the other, for instance. To use OpenSSL in a GPL-ed project (like Caudium, for instance) I have to get an exemption from OpenSSL to use it with a GPL-ed project. > >confused, > > > > > yes you are :-) yes, because I'm starting to spend more time resolving legal issues which don't interest me at all than developing code. This is just sick. marek
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature