Re: 6 GPL'ed Packages that depend on XForms.
Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca> writes:
> You mean allow linking and explicitely allow distribution, right?
Yes.
> You don't mean invoking the major components bit do you?
No, I think that is a clumsy solution to the problem.
> "You may link this software with XForms (Copyright (c) by
> T.C. Zhao and Mark Overmars) and distribute the resulting
> binary. You are not required to include this paragraph in the
> license for derivatives of this software."
I feel a little bad about the *unrestricted* permission to distribute
the resulting binary; see my previous message.
Also I think it would be a good thing (even if not strictly
required by law) to spell out explicitly that you are not
purporting to relicense XForms itself.
I would suggest
"You may link this software with XForms (Copyright (C) by
T.C. Zhao and Mark Overmars) and distribute the resulting
binary, under the restrictions in clause 3 of the GPL,
even though the resulting binary is not, as a whole,
covered by the GPL. (You still need a separate license
to do so from the owner(s) of the copyright for XForms,
however). You are not required to include this paragraph
in the license for deriviatives of this software.
> (Isn't that implied anyway? The GPL covers modication and
> distribution, not use.
Yes, but I think that in copyright terms the act of linking with a
library could be construed a "modification" and thus be subject to
copyright.
Thus a permission to only link with XForms would be meaningful even
if it did not extend to distribution of the linked binary. Because of
that I don't think that the latter should be implied.
--
Henning Makholm
Reply to: