[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GPL compatibility question.

On Sat, Jan 31, 2004 at 07:17:23PM +0100, Laurent Fousse wrote:
> I'd like to have your opinion about a GPL compatibility issue.
> Libcanlock has been ITP'ed (#204933) and the goal is to have slrn use
> it (#127901). However, slrn is GPL and libcanlock is made of several
> files :
>  - one is BSD licensed

Presumably 3-clause BSD, that's fine.

>  - some are under the X11 license as found in
>    http://www.x.org/Downloads_terms.html

Canonical example of a completely unrestricted license, that's fine too.

>  - one is taken from RFC 3174 (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3174.html,
>    license terms at the end).

Not a chance, that's nowhere near GPL-compatible.

It also appears to be non-free in its own right.

> I don't like the wording of "derivative work that comment on...", I
> think it narrows the scope of what kind of derivative works are
> allowed.

It prohibits almost any derivative work. This is very close to a
"shared source" license.

The only derivative works permitted are:
 - comments on the document
 - things that "assist in its implementation"
 - anything that the IETF decide they want to do as part of their
   "Internet Standards" process

Notable things that this prohibits:
 - development of competing standards
 - implementing anything that does not conform
 - anything that is entirely unrelated

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: