Re: Licening issues ibwebadmin
Matthew Palmer wrote:
> On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 10:09:52AM +0200, Remco Seesink wrote:
>>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.
If the JSRS license were non-copyleft (such as the MIT license), it
would be GPL-compatible. However, this JSRS license clause:
>> 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.
does not allow any different set of rules to apply, which includes the
GPL's rules. In addition, the GPL contains many restrictions beyond
those of this license. Most copyleft licenses are generally
incompatible with each other, because they don't allow any other
restrictions, and they don't have identical sets of restrictions.
>>Am I correct in this ? Would a linking exception from the author of ibwebadmin as
>>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>
Considering that the JSRS author chose a copyleft license (albeit a
relatively weak copyleft), I don't think you should suggest that they
change to a non-copyleft license. If you are going to suggest another
license, you might suggest a dual-license with the GPL.
- Josh Triplett