[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The purpose of the "license" list of a Guix package (Was: Re: Jam: w
From: |
Maxime Devos |
Subject: |
Re: The purpose of the "license" list of a Guix package (Was: Re: Jam: which licence is this?) |
Date: |
Sat, 08 May 2021 22:52:08 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Evolution 3.34.2 |
Leo Prikler schreef op za 08-05-2021 om 12:16 [+0200]:
> [... something about dependencies and copyleft ...]
> [...]
> However, compliance is not *that* simple. If you're dealing with
> copyleft, providing the source is not enough, you also need to license
> your own work under that copyleft license, e.g. the GPL. [...]
Just checking if our understanding is the same, as I have seen a discussion
on IRC where people the situation described below was _not_ legally acceptable.
Suppose we have a GPLv3+ library, say guile-jwt.
Suppose there is a (group of) developer(s) writing an application using
guile-jwt. Let's call the application APP, and the developer(s) DEV.
A hypothetical situation:
* Suppose DEV is not very fond of licensing APP under a copyleft license,
and insteads prefers something with basically no licenses.
* DEV wants to choose, say, license:expat.
* license:expat is not license:gpl3
* Would this be a problem? I would think not. While APP used guile-jwt,
it doesn't include or modify its source code.
So I would think DEV
must still respect GPL for the combination (e.g., if DEV provides binaries
for APP, they must include source code for guile-jwt *and* APP),
and theoretically someone may fork APP to replace guile-jwt with
a hypothetical guile-jwt/expat, and at that point the GPL doesn't
apply anymore to the combination APP-with-guile-jwt/expat.
<insert standard IANAL disclaimer here>
I would find it interesting to know if some ‘legal people’ have worked out
this situation.
Greetings,
Maxime.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Jam: which licence is this?, Ludovic Courtès, 2021/05/02