[Savannah-register-public] [gnu.org #220951] LGPL-compatibility of Condor and LAM-MPI

[Dave Turner via RT]

> address@hidden - Wed Feb 09 13:43:06 2005]:
> 
> On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 08:09:27PM -0500, Dave Turner via RT wrote:
> > > address@hidden - Sat Feb 05 03:53:03 2005]:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 07:54:46PM -0500, Dave Turner via RT
> wrote:
> > > > > address@hidden - Thu Feb 03 17:53:44 2005]:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > >
> > > > > I am reviewing the 'paradiseo' project at Savannah. This
> software
> > > > > relies among others on Condor and LAM-MPI.
> > > > >
> > > > > The 'paradiseo' project is released under the GNU *L*GPL. I
> would like
> > > > > to know if the dependencies licenses are compatible with the
> LGPL.
> > > > >
> > > > > The license of Condor can be found here:
> > > > > http://www.cs.wisc.edu/condor/downloads/v6.7.license.html
> > > > > I am wondering about sections 3 and 4.
> > > > >
> > > > > The license of LAM-MPI is attached or can be found in:
> > > > > http://www.lam-mpi.org/download/files/lam-7.1.1.tar.bz2
> > > > > That one looks like a PHP license.
> > > >
> > > > They can be combined with LGPL works, but the work as a whole
> can't be
> > > > licensed under the LGPL, and can't be combined with GPL works.
> > >
> > > Do you see a way to license the 'paradiseo' code under a GNU
> > > GPL-compatible license, while allowing it to use Condor and LAM-
> MPI?
> > >
> > > Relicensing 'paradiseo' under the Expat license?
> >
> > The problem isn't the license of paradiseo.  It's the license of
> Condor
> > and LAM-MPI.  So, no change in the license of paradiseo will help.
> 
> Do you mean there is no legal way for paradiseo to use Condor and
> LAM-MPI?

No, I mean that there is no way to do so such that the result is
compatible with the GPL.  
> Here's my constraints:
> - code hosted at Savannah has to be GNU GPL-compatible
> - dependencies have to be free software (although they can be GNU
>   GPL-incompatible)
> 
> Maybe this needs to be precised (should we actually require
> GPL-compatibility of dependencies?).
> 
> I though that if the code were released under a simple non-copyleft
> license such as Expat's, the linking with Condor&LAM-MPI could legally
> be done, while the application code stricto sensu would be GNU
> GPL-compatible and eligible for Savannah hosting (although not usable
> in a GNU GPL-licensed program without getting rid of the GNU
> GPL-incompatible dependencies first).

This is true in the LGPL case too.  

-- 
-Dave "Novalis" Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
Free Software Foundation