[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)

From: Benjamin
Subject: Re: GPL licenced Java application using non GPL jars (libraries)
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 10:33:06 +0100
User-agent: Mail/News 1.5 (Windows/20051206)

Alex raises an interesting point, is our licence with clause still compatible with other programs/libraries that use an unmodified GPL licence (modification in this sense being any "overridden" conflicts as per John Hasler's definition)?

If they are compatible what is the reasoning that brings you to this conclusion?



Alexander Terekhov wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
Ben writes:
Does this additional exception clause violate the GPL in any way?
The GPL is not a law.  It a model license.  When you distribute software
under it you are stating terms which just happen to be identical to those
used by Richard Stallman for Emacs.  The terms are yours, and you can
amend them as you see fit.

Yeah. (quoting the GNU copyleft FAQ.)

"You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).


Although we will not raise legal objections to your making a modified license in this way, we hope you will think twice and not do it. Such a modified license is almost certainly incompatible with the GNU GPL, and that incompatibility blocks useful combinations of modules."

Bzzt. (Useful or not, combinations of modules are not "modified works" [derivative works] under GPL 2b; they are compilations, aka "mere aggregations" in GNU speak.)

But okay...

How can it be compatible with the GPL if the clause states that they can
link some non-GPL jars, yet the GPL states all the linked in libraries
The exception amends the GPL, overriding anything in the GPL that it
conflicts with.  Again, the GPL is not a law.  It is just a model license.

and yet when it comes to the GPL linking "exception" which modifies purported GPL terms (in FSF's interpretation):

"When other people modify the program, they do not have to make the same exception for their code--it is their choice whether to do so."

Very interesting. GNU logic.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]