Re: IBM public license
Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> [IPL is not GPL compatible]
> > But I'm curious about these other conflicts. I've not read the license
> > closely enough to pin them down or to rule them out. Having someone
> > else's insight on the matter would be illuminating.
Henning Makholm <email@example.com> wrote:
> Consider the situation where I take some code from a GPL'ed program and
> some code from a program under the IBM license, add some of my own and
> wish to distribute the result.
> Now, since my program is a deriviate of the GPL'ed program, I can only
> distribute the resulting binary if I also distribute the entire source
> for it under GPL. And, by the explicit definition in the GPL, the
> "entire source" includes those parts I took from IBMs program.
> On the other hand, IBM's license does not allow me to redistibute
> part of their source under any other license than IBM's own license.
> because the two licenses are not the same, I cannot simultaneously
> fulfill the requirements of both licenses.
Er.. the GPL doesn't require that the IBM source be distributed under
any terms other than the IBM license -- it merely requires that the IBM
license allow the same permissions as the GPL.
Currently the IBM license explicitly states that the GPL's transitive
property isn't allowed, so that's enough to prevent satisfying the GPL.
But I was looking for some other specific conflict.
[If this is the only conflict, that's fine, I just want to make sure
I understand the issues.]