Re: Mixture of Code unter GPL-2+ and UnRAR license compatible?
Hi all,
let me shed some light on source files structure:
./common/ -- GPLv2+, shared core across several modules, cannot be
relicensed (LGPLv2+ might be an option though).
./unrar/unrar.c -- GPLv2+, may be relicensed if needed. It's a bridge
between two APIs.
./unrar/unrar/ -- original unrar sources (there might be few
modifications, but I hope to solve them soon, so we can have unmodified
unrar sources there).
All these sources are statically linked to a single shared object
(library), which is being loaded by the master application.
Now the question is: is it allowed to statically link object files with
different licenses? Is it allowed to load such library into a GPLv2+
application (technically speaking it's linking again, in runtime)?
I don't have problem relicensing any sources except of the ./common/
core. The package would need to have two licenses, that's fine with me.
I'm trying to retain all copyrights as much as possible (i.e. the unrar
copyright is displayed in master application).
That said, I haven't spoken to unrar author yet, wanted to know lawyers
opinion first.
On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 07:50 +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote:
> I found a similar licensing problem in RedHat Bugtracker [1].
>
> ---(Comment #25)--------------------------------------------------------
[snip]
> This code cannot go into Fedora as is. All RAR v3.x support would need to be
> stripped out, before it could be considered. Given that most RAR files are RAR
> v3, that severely limits the usefulness of this application.
>
> In addition, we will need to strip the RAR v3 code out of clamav.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=319831
> [2] http://bugs.debian.org/312552
Also see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Unrar
Thanks,
--
Tomas Bzatek
Reply to: