[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Tony Stanco
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]UDDI (was Re: Our blindspot)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 17:44:10 -0500

Ideally, all FD software should be GPL. However, there is a mechanism in
place for exceptions, that is to refer it to Richard as Chief Ethics Officer
for a waiver.

We are trying to create a separate body of code that can't become
proprietary at any point, but there may be good reasons to use code that
achieves this goal in the long term, but where in the short time an
exception is needed. Richard has years of experience in knowing where this
practical balance needs to be struck, so the tough cases should be referred
to him, when no comparable GPL alternative exists.

>From: David Sugar <address@hidden>
>First, there are two very different concepts of what GPL "compatible"
>might mean being asserted here and this has some relevance to the FD
>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.
>Developers mailing list

reply via email to

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