On Jun 11, 2007, at 11:08 PM, Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote: >> According to the FSF, MIT license terms are GPL compatible and assume >> GPL terms when linked with a GPLed application. > > That may be true, I realize that all sorts of licenses are compatible > with the GPL. I don't have any problems with MIT licenses.
So? > The problem here is that we shouldn't be mixing licences in the CW > source code because: You may not fully appreciate the mechanism of GPL licensing. A project becomes and remains GPL when distributed as a whole if any part of it is GPL. Like most other open source projects distributed under GPL terms, Callweaver does already contain pieces which are licensed under various GPL compatible licenses. Those parts are available under their respective license terms when distributed individually/separately. > 1) It's just confusing, especially if you are trying to combine CW > with > some other software that has some other license - now you have > twice the > work to do trying to figure out if you're still legal. Not at all. Whichever way you chop up the code, what's GPL remains GPL, what's GPL compatible remains GPL compatible. If its either GPL or GPL compatible then you can use it in a GPL project. Very simple. > 2) It sets a bad prececent - if we allow non-GPL code one time someone > will come along and ask to include code with some other license. The precedent is already there. The GSM codec is one such example and there are quite a few others. > I had thought that all CW code was supposed to be available solely > under > the GPL When distributed as a whole, CW is available solely under the GPL. > - isn't that part of the reason we're here in the first place? I wouldn't assume that there is a consensus based on religious grounds. While the reason may be religious for some, it is likely to be purely practical for others. rgds benjk _______________________________________________ Callweaver-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.callweaver.org/mailman/listinfo/callweaver-dev
