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

Re: Artistic and LGPL compatibility in jar files

On Dec 15, 2009, at 12:20 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> More precisely, the grant would need to say (words to the effect of)
> either:
>    You may do X, Y, Z to this work under the following terms:
>    foo, bar, baz.
> or:
>    You may do X, Y, Z to this work under the terms of foobar license;

which brings my back to my original question. The LICENSE.txt file from JUMBO/CML says

> All JUMBO code is distributed under the Open Source Artistic License 
> (http://www.opensource.org). You are free to modify the code but if you do it may no
> longer be distributed under the name JUMBO (or a derivative) without permission of Peter
> Murray-Rust. Any distribution must acknowledge the origins and also include copies of the
> JUMBO source (see Artistic License for details). You may not claim that a modified version
> is a compliant CML system and may not assert that it reads or writes CML.

In private mail the copyright owners have clarified that this is 2.0.

How do I interpret this LICENSE.txt? The Artistic License 2.0 allows relicensing to the GPL. I'm well and clear about that (though there's still a subtle question of if it allows relicensing to the LGPL).

However, if I use clause 4(c)(ii) to switch the GPL, am I and my downstream
users still prohibited from:

  - distributing the software under the name JUMBO (or a derivative) 
       ("Jumbo, Jr", "Dumbo", "Elephant" and "Timothy" all seem derivative)
  - calling a modified version a "compliant CML system"
  - asserting that a modified version can read and write CML?

That is, are these clauses additions to the Artistic License 2.0 which must be preserved even after 4(c)(ii) relicensing to the GPL? My suspicion is that derivatives must still be prohibited from those activities.

Is the resulting software (with these extra limitations) free software enough for Debian?

Best regards,


Reply to: