On Fri, Apr 01, 2005 at 12:47:15AM -0700, Jamin W.Collins wrote: > Based on the recent concerns I began checking each Jabberd source file > for license indication in the hopes of distributing Jabberd under the > GPL or some other allowed license. Unfortunately, what I found was a > bit of a mess. Bits of Jabberd are under a variety of different > licenses and some don't indicate any license at all. From what I've > been able to find the files are listed under one of the following: > - Modified Apache 1.0 > - BSD > - JOSL > - MPL v1.1 > - none > - either JOSL or GPLv2+ > > I'm not up on all the interactions between the various licenses, but I > have had a previous situation with MPL and GPL interaction and they > are considered by most to be incompatible. The MPL, the JOSL, and the modified Apache license are probably all GPL-incompatible. > As the Jabberd source currently stands, I'm not sure the resultant > binaries are distributable at all due to the various licenses and/or > lack there of. It seems pretty clear that they aren't. The MPL and the unlicensed stuff are the worst problems. Time to hunt down the jabberd upstream and shake them. > I've attached a complete file listing of the 1.4.3 source grouped by > indicated license (or lack thereof). I've also grouped several files > that don't indicate a license but I'm not sure they need to (generated > Makefiles, short scripts, READMEs, etc). I would expect to see a license for the whole tree, of the form "Anything not otherwise stated is licensed under the GPL", to cover the build system and documentation and stuff. Individual files might not need to be, but (eg) the build system as a whole does. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature