Re: [libreplanet-discuss] applying the GPL to some clojure code

[Catonano]

Mike,

2015-12-03 19:17 GMT+01:00 Mike Gerwitz <mtg@gnu.org>:

On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 10:14:09 +0100, Catonano wrote:
> Hello people,
>
> If this is not the right place, I apologize.
>
> I'd like to apply the GPL license to a small clojure project of mine.
>
> I know that clojure requires the GPL to mention an exception because the
> clojure core libraries and runtime are released under the EPL

I asked licensing@fsf.org about this in the past (considering the AGPL);
here's the response I received:

  One easy option for the code you write yourself would be to license it
  under the AGPL with an extra permission:

    https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs

  You may also want to review this answer:

    https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InterpreterIncompat

  > My end goal is this: I do not necessarily care if other EPL-licensed
  > Clojure projects have difficulty incorporating my code, but I want
  other AGPL-
  > licensed works to be able to include my code freely.

  Because the code that you write would be licensed under the AGPL with an
  extra (removable) permission, then other AGPL projects will be able to
  use it without compatibility issues. Of course, they will need to add an
  extra permission themselves if they also need the EPL-licensed components.

  Also, if you make sure that you license your code under "AGPL v3 or
  later" then future AGPLv4-licensed programs will be able to use your
  code as well.

  I hope this helps.

  Francois 

--
Mike Gerwitz
Free Software Hacker | GNU Maintainer
http://mikegerwitz.com
FSF Member #5804 | GPG Key ID: 0x8EE30EAB

This is basically my case.

For caution I wrote to them too, on Dec 27th, no reply yet.

Is this normal ? Or i can assume that they missed my email or decided not to handle it for some reason ?

The fsf docs say to include the license text in every file it applies to, but the github default is to add a single file to the root of the project. This has me wondering.

Why the indication is different ? Isn' t this a legal standard ?

Also the project includes some csv files that I extracted from some xls files published by a governmental agency. If I put a single license file at the top of the project, will it apply to the resources files too ?