On Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 10:08:11AM -0800, Don Armstrong scribbled: [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). > > Mozilla is (for the most part) dual licensed under the (M|N)PL and > (L|)GPL. Please see my other mail where I have a few more doubts regarding precisely the case of mozilla. > Apache itself doesn't contain any GPL licensed code, and as far as I > am aware, isn't a derivative work of any GPL licensed code. > > PHP (to my knowledge) follows along much the same lines as Apache. Yes, that's correct. But my doubts arise from linking such software (with GPL-incompatible license, like the PHP's one) with GPL-compatible software (also look in the other mail, please) > Before trotting out examples of incompatibilities (especially ones > that "debian mixes [...] in many projects it distributes"), you need > to walk through why you believe the incompatibility to exist in the > first place. In cases where we discover code that is a derivative work > of a GPLed work that cannot be re-distributed under the GPL, we > scrutinize them very carefully, and often request specific exemptions > from the author of the derivative work so that we can legally > distribute the resultant work. Oh, my mail was caused only by what I read on gnu.org which listed several licenses as incompatible with GPL - that just rang a bell, I saw MPL/NPL/PHP being not compatible and that's why I asked. It was caused by curiosity more than by the will to point any specific code out. > > 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? Does one have to obtain some kind of > > exemption from any of the "sides"? > > You (in general) can't incorporate code which is under a license that > is incompatible with the GPL to create a derivative work under the GPL > unless you yourself are the copyright holder of both works in > question. OK, so by that token - no MPL/NPL code in Mozilla should ever use any GPL code, am I right in assuming that? Don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to walk the maze without breaking my hands and legs. Note, that I assume that what's written in the mozilla (debian) copyright file can be understood verbatim - that _some_ files in it are licensed solely under MPL/NPL (while others are dual-licensed etc. etc.). Then those single-license files would affect the whole binary, that's how I understand it. > The general method is to choose licenses carefully so that they are > GPL compatible if you ever want to incorporate them into a GPLed work, > or dual license the work so that you can incorporate them. > > In the end, it really depends on what your goals are for the license > and for the work. If you have a concrete example of what you want to > do, we may be able to provide some ideas on what you might want to > consider. OK, the thing at stake is the use of OpenSSL or Cryptlib[1] in the Caudium[2] project. Looking at [2], I see clauses which make cryptlib not compatible with clauses #5 and #6 of the DFSG. The license is a BSD one, that's clear, but the terms of use and usage conditions seem to restrict the use to non-commercial or low-cost projects. That's, IMHO, against the abovementioned clauses. Am I right in assuming that? Oh, and we cannot relicense the Caudium code, as we aren't the original copyright holders of the entire code. Also, I would like to know whether it's ok for me to issue an ITP for Cryptlib. thanks, marek
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature