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

Re: psyBNC

On 06-Jul-2005, Matteo Croce wrote:
> The whole sourcecode is GPL'd but two files that are under the
> Apache license.

This renders the whole thing non-distributable; one cannot distribute
the work and satisfy the terms of both licenses. (You don't specify
here which version of the Apache license is used; there are several.)

This is why the Apache license is listed as a "GPL-incompatible free
software license".


Software that is entirely licensed under (all version of) the GPL is
free software, and distributable by anyone.

Software that is entirely licensed under (all currently known versions
of) the Apache license is free software, and distributable by anyone.

Software that is licensed under a combination of (some versions of)
the GPL and Apache licenses is not distributable by anyone, because
the license restrictions conflict. Since no-one can satisfy both
licenses simultaneously, no action is permitted by either license.

> If the Apache license doesn't comply with the DFSG the package could
> go in non-free until i rewrite the non gpl function.

Software that is not licensed so that it can be legally distributed
(such as this software, currently) cannot be distributed from any part
of the Debian archive.

I hope you're having some progress on rewriting the conflicting parts
so that the whole thing can be licensed coherently.

 \     "I went to a museum where all the artwork was done by children. |
  `\       They had all the paintings up on refrigerators."  -- Steven |
_o__)                                                           Wright |
Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: