Re: Licening issues ibwebadmin
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 10:09:52AM +0200, Remco Seesink wrote:
> It uses some javascript from a different author and this is the license:
>
> <BEGIN JSRS LICENSE>
> No Nonsense Copyright and License for JSRS JavaScript Remote Scripting
> ======================================================================
>
> Copyright:
>
> This JSRS stuff was written by me. I find it useful. Others find it useful.
> You are welcome to use it, modify it to suit your needs, distribute it as you
> see fit. I'm happy if you use it for personal stuff or for commercial gain.
Allows all the usual things - modification, redistribution, commercial
purposes, etc. It would be reasonable to presume that distribution of
modified versions is OK, too.
> The only thing you can't do is to restrict anyone else from using it however
> they see fit. You may not copyright it yourself or change the rules I have
> set on how it can be used.
Copyleft, by my reading.
> It looks to me that the "No Nonsense" license itself is DFSG free.
I'd agree with that.
> >From this:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
> It seems to me that the GPL applies to the JSRS software too. And the "No Nonsense"
> requirements for no further restrictions would be incompatible with that.
I consider it the other way around. The JSRS states "The only thing you
can't do is restrict anyone else from using it however they see fit". The
GPL says "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients'
exercise of the rights granted herein". That seems pretty compatible.
Note, also, that the GPL says that the combined work must be distributed
"under the terms of this licence", which d-legal has taken in the past to
mean "you must grant at least the freedoms specified herein", and I think
that the JSRS licence grants them all.
> Am I correct in this ? Would a linking exception from the author of ibwebadmin as
> decribed here:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs
> provide a solution?
A linking exception would be one way of doing it.
> An alternative solution would be contacting the JSRS to see if he is willing to
> relicense it. Am I missing options?
That's another way. I would imagine that the JSRS author would consider a
2-clause MIT/BSD licence to fit the bill rather nicely, and it has a much
more LAWYERLY EMPHATIC disclaimer. <grin>
- Matt
Reply to: