Re: License issue, and a possible solution

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

On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 08:34:23PM -0500, Vincent wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 05:45:21PM -0600, Kurt Fitzner wrote:
> > Vincent wrote:
> The most restrictive license applies to a binary distribution because
> the files are not all distributed separately, each with their own
> license.  This is why it is considerd GPL incompatible.  Because it
> would force distribution of GPL'd code under additional restrictions
> when they are combined.
> Also, it is not just the libraries.  I have already seen headers that
> have been changed to the new license and you cannot link to libraries
> without including the related headers so it would again violate the
> license.
> > Otherwise, the statement is essentially (from what I understand) true. 
> > XFree recognizes that the GPL license is not compatible with the new 1.1 
> > XFree license.  To avoid affecting all programs that link against X, 
> > they chose where to apply the license.
> Yes, that is exactly what I said.  "they choose where to apply the
> license".  Ok, I said "enforce".  If that choice of word was ambiguous
> to you then I will say "apply" :-).  The license itself does not
> restrict that.  If that choice were handed over to Microsoft because
> Microsoft bought The XFree86 Project, Inc, do you think they would
> hesitate to "apply" the license everywhere the licenses gives them the
> right to?  Yep, SCO is really holding back for the benifit of free
> software :-).  You know they didn't used to be part of Caldera and
> Caldera was considered a trusted main stream Linux distribution.
> First, if binaries only are distributed then, again, these binaries
> are linked with code and headers that have the new licenses.  I looked
> at the diff of files that have already been updated with the new
> license and a lot of the headers are included.

I read this again and realized that I think I misinterpreted part of
your statement Kurt.  If by not applying the new licenses you meant
that the old license wording will actually be included with the
library files, then "apply" verses "enforce" are definitely two
different things in this case and I apologize for my misunderstanding
of your meaning.  However, I think my comments about the headers and
the most restrictive license applying when you combine them into
binary still hold true.

Forum mailing list

[X.Org]     [XFree86]     [XFree86 Discussion]     [XFree86 Newbie]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Samba]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux