|
From: | David Sugar |
Subject: | Re: [DotGNU]UDDI (was Re: Our blindspot) |
Date: | Thu, 14 Feb 2002 12:22:51 -0500 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20020107 |
In one case, a software might be licensed in a way that it can be relicensed under the GPL. This is the case of BSD software certainly. Software on disjunctive licenses that include the GPL as an option also fall into this category. On the face of it, a license that can be used to release software under the GPL surely meets the FD charter. Perhaps this category should be called GPL "convertable" so that it is more clear. This in reality is a subset of "GPL compatible".
When one speaks of GPL "compatible", I believe this often is meant as something else; software that can be used with or linked with software under the GPL but which is itself under a different and non-conflicting license. Clearly anything that is "convertable" to the GPL is in effect compatible as well, although the reverse need not be true. What the FD charter says of this may well be different and more strict than what GNU says of this. However, since BSD licensed code is "convertable" I would argue it's use is valid as per the FD charter, the only question being if FD requires it to be relicensed for it's use and distribution.
Norbert Bollow wrote:
I stand corrected, partially. I believe the FreeDevelopers charter limits us to copylefted software,One of the requirements for software to be "official DotGNU software" is that it must be GPL'd. (It seems that GPL with linking exception, and LGPL are close enough to GPL to satisfy this requirement). This is a restriction on what licenses we can use for software that we create, not a restriction on what software we can use as dependencies, and (where appropriate) distribute with DotGNU. All Free Software with GPL-compatible licensing is fine for that.or did I miss yet another memo?According to this, BSD software (aka 'XFree86 Style') is Free, although non-copylefted. (#TOCNon-CopyleftedFreeSoftware)It's also GPL-compatible, meaning that if it turns out that we want to make big changes, we are allowed to create a GPL'd derivative work. This is good enough so that we should feel free to use it and contribute any small changes to the current maintainers -- unless we actually make big, extensive changes, or changes that the current maintainers don't want to include in their version, the overhead of maintaining a GPL fork cannot be justified in any way. Greetings, Norbert.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |