[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs
From: |
Alexander Terekhov |
Subject: |
Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs |
Date: |
Wed, 07 Jul 2004 12:07:43 +0200 |
Barak Zalstein wrote:
[...]
> While creating a mixture of GPL, BSD, CPL, other similarly licensed
> source files and linking them together seems to not violate user
> freedoms, CPL marked as incompatible by gnu.org is good enough reason to
> say no thanks.
"GPL incompatibility" is a myth. With respect to the CPL (and also
EPL, ASL, OSL, etc.) it simply means that RMS hates patents. You should
read this (and follow all the embedded links; recursively ;-) ):
http://www.eclipse.org/legal/legalfaq.html#use_10
http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg48859.php
http://lists.boost.org/MailArchives/boost/msg64421.php
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=4055B28B.DC1BA071%40web.de
I also like this:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=10fq4-578-7%40gated-at.bofh.it
---
The GPL really needs an improved clause about patent licensing too. (The GPL
could easily be a patent pool. Right now the language says that patents must
be licensed for use by everybody, when all it really NEEDS to say is that the
patent needs to be licensed for use in GPL programs. in regards to patents,
the GPL acts like the BSD license, rather than copyleft, and that would be
really easy to fix.)
The GPL is sort of becoming a patent pool anyway, with Red Hat licensing its
patents for use in GPL programs only, and IBM making noises about that,
etc... But it's not explicit, and it's not really one pool that you join
automatically by participating, and that violation of the GPL could block you
from access to all of...
Richard Stallman, unfortunately, is a zealot. He wants to log roll a whole
bunch of things like addressing the application service provider issue into a
GPL 3.0, which means there probably never will be a GPL 3.0. And he won't
issue a GPL 2.1 with minor issues like these because that would erode the
chocolate coating on the other unpopular issues he wants to lump together
into a big "take it or leave it" upgrade at some nebulous point in the future
that pushes unpopular elements of his agenda as part of the package...
Sad, really. Oh well. I suppose somebody could come out with a "GPL patent
pool license", which might not violate the GPL. The preamble says "we have
made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not
licensed at all", but doesn't say who everyone is (since the license only
applies to people who accept the license, then it could logically be
"everyone who agrees to the GPL".) Clauses 7 and 8 mention patents, but
don't specify any license terms for them. Therefore, you NEED a patent
license, but the GPL doesn't give the text of it.
So if the GPL is just a copyright license, and it requires patents be licensed
but doesn't specify the terms, therefore it's legal (and in fact expected) to
combine the GPL with a (compatable) patent license. But there IS no standard
GPL patent license. It would be nice if there was one, that could be
regularly combined with the GPL in a standard way (GPL+), saying that the
patents are licensed for use in GPL-licensed software only, as part of a GPL
patent pool.
It's one way to bypass Stallman's log-rolling, anyway...
Rob
---
> Maybe instead of going in circles, it would be interesting to see if a
> project such as eclipse accepts patches ...
http://www.eclipse.org/legal/notice.html
---
THE ABOUTS, FEATURE LICENSES AND FEATURE UPDATE LICENSES MAY REFER TO THE
CPL OR OTHER LICENSE AGREEMENTS, NOTICES OR TERMS AND CONDITIONS. SOME OF
THESE OTHER LICENSE AGREEMENTS MAY INCLUDE (BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO):
Eclipse Public License Version 1.0 (available at
http://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html)
Apache Software License 1.1 (available at
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE)
IBM Public License 1.0 (available at
http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/license10.html)
Metro Link Public License 1.00 (available at
http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/supporters/metrolink/license.html)
Mozilla Public License Version 1.1 (available at
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/MPL-1.1.html)
---
See also:
http://www.eclipse.org/legal/legalfaq.html#use_5
(The complete list of other licenses varies with each project and
the specific content and is subject to change.)
http://www.eclipse.org/legal/committerguidelines.html
(But note that "attribution" is totally OK; It's even codified in
the Australian Copyright Act [2000] as a requirement. And, of
course, licenses/claims intending to "contaminate the code base"
are barred by the doctrine of copyright misuse and the doctrine
of first sale)
> It would not be a replacement for business legal advice, but may help to
> clear things for bystanders.
> OTOH, the experiment would probably mean nothing as the analogous case
> is that Linux kernel is GPLed and blends nicely with proprietary components.
Exactly.
regards,
alexander.
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, (continued)
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/06
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Rui Miguel Seabra, 2004/07/06
- Message not available
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/06
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Rui Miguel Seabra, 2004/07/06
- Message not available
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/06
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Rui Miguel Seabra, 2004/07/06
- Message not available
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/06
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Rui Miguel Seabra, 2004/07/06
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Rui Miguel Seabra, 2004/07/06
- Message not available
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Barak Zalstein, 2004/07/07
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs,
Alexander Terekhov <=
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Rui Miguel Seabra, 2004/07/07
- Message not available
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/07
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, David Kastrup, 2004/07/07
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/07
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/07
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/07
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Rui Miguel Seabra, 2004/07/07
- Message not available
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/07
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Rui Miguel Seabra, 2004/07/07
- Message not available
- Re: Use of GPL'd code with proprietary programs, Alexander Terekhov, 2004/07/07