[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [DotGNU]UDDI (was Re: Our blindspot)

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

First, there are two very different concepts of what GPL "compatible" might mean being asserted here and this has some relevance to the FD charter.

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.

reply via email to

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