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

Re: License problem



On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 11:23:46 +0200 Alexis Papadopoulos wrote:

> Thanks for your answer...

You're welcome, but, please, do *not* reply to me while Cc:ing the list,
as I didn't ask you to do so. I am a debian-legal subscriber and I'd
rather avoid receiving replies twice... Thanks.

> 
> > Mmmh, you should explain the dependence relationship better.
> > How do these executables interact with bamg?
> > Do they invoke it by forking another process?
> > Do they link against it?
> > Do they incorporate parts of bamg source code in their own code?
> 
> The invoke it by forking another process (more precisely the system 
> method of C++ is used).

In other words, they invoke it just like a shell would do (more or
less).
They launch bamg as a separate executable process, passing it
command-line arguments.

If this is the case, I think that even the FSF would say that it's not
necessary for bamg to be GPL-compatible...

Of course, from a Debian point of view, DFSG and Policy considerations
still hold (see my previous reply)...

> 
> > What does he agree with?
> > That bamg is distributed along with other files?
> > Or that bamg is distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL v2?
> 
> He agreed on the distribution of bamg along with rheolef, we are
> allowed  to include bamg's sources in our own.

OK, it seems you are allowed to distribute bamg along with rheolef.
That is enough for non-free, I think.
But definitely *not* for main!
Again see the discussion in my previous reply...

> 
> > This depends on your answer to the above questions regarding the
> > relationship between bamg and rheolef...
> 
> 
> Doesn't the fact that bamg's sources are now part of rheolef obliges
> us  to make it GPL ?

I don't think so.
It would qualify as "mere aggregation".

> 
> Now it gets a little bit more complicated (I hoped we didn't have to
> go  this far :). Bamg is undevelopped for more than a year now.
> Instead it's  author is working on a new application (FreeFem++),
> which includes some  of the bamg code, but creates a more complete
> binary (bamg is only a  part of it). Now if he accepts to release the
> former code of bamg (the  one I use) under GPL, won't he be forced to
> do the same for FreeFem++,  since bamg code has been used in it. (in
> case this is revelant, FreeFem  doesn't produce any bamg binary, it's
> using the sources directly) ?

No, because bamg author is the copyright holder: consequently he/she is
able to release the same code more than once, each time under a license
of his/her choice.
And he/she is not bound by the license he/she chose: only the rest of
the world is!

Here, I'm assuming that bamg author is its sole copyright holder...

> 
> I'll wait until I have a clear view on the issue before contacting him
> again to propose GPL :).

Good strategy.

-- 
    :-(   This Universe is buggy! Where's the Creator's BTS?   ;-)
......................................................................
  Francesco Poli                             GnuPG Key ID = DD6DFCF4
 Key fingerprint = C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12  31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4

Attachment: pgpSRibRKHsL3.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: