[Openexr-devel] Fwd: Re: [gnu.org #348899] GPL compatibility with CTL licence

[Cyrille Berger]

Hi,

After our discution yesterday on address@hidden, I have asked the 
opinion of address@hidden, and here is the two answers I got. So the third 
clause (patent and trademark) is not a problem with GPL. But they confirm 
that the jurisdiction clause is not compatible with GPL (or the other way 
arround ;) ).

And indeed that concern only the ctl library and not openexr which use a more 
classical BSD licence.

I am going to contact AMPAS about it and will keep you inform.

-- 
Cyrille Berger
> --- Begin Message ---
>
>
>
> Subject: 
>
> Re: [gnu.org #348899] GPL compatibility with CTL licence
>
>
>
>
> Date: 
>
> Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:11:54 -0500
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 05:03:56PM -0500, Cyrille Berger via RT wrote:
> > But what about the third clause ? I am going to try to see with the authors 
> > if 
> > they are willing to change the licence, and I want to be sure that the 
> > jurisdiction clause is the only problem ?
>
> I have not consulted with a lawyer, and so this is not a final answer, but
> I don't think the third clause is an obstacle to GPL-compatibility.  The
> first part merely states what most people would assume to be true anyway if
> the license said nothing about the subject at all.  The second part,
> restricting your use of related names for publicity purposes, is fairly
> standard and one we've accepted as GPL-compatible before; see, for example,
> the Standard ML of New Jersey license.
>
> > Is it ok if I forward your answer to some mailing list (mainly 
> > address@hidden and address@hidden) where those issues have been 
> > discussed in the past and where other people might look having the same 
> > question ?
>
> Feel free to share my e-mails verbatim with those lists.  Please make sure
> you include the quoted parts as well as my original text; they help
> establish important context and avoid misunderstandings.
>
> Best regards,
>
> -- 
> Brett Smith
> Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation
>
> Please note that I am not an attorney.  This is not legal advice.
>
>
>
>
> --- End Message ---

gnu.mbox
Description: application/mbox