While it is correct that one should not try to mix GPL code with
commerical code, the use of LGPL APIs to support commercial code
(as well as to support open source code under other licenses) is
in general viable, and not likely to get you tangled with lawyers.
-- Herbert
At 1:28 PM -0700 7/3/07, Warren DeLano wrote:
> Behalf Of Ethan Merritt
What you cannot do is mix GPL and non-GPL code within a single
program. This sounds clear until the lawyers start arguing
about what is or is not a single program [*]. At this point
opinions and arguments and legal precedents diverge.
[*] "Ay, there's the rub", which is why I am such a big fan of
non-GPL/non-viral open-source licenses, and especially so nowadays given
that the lines separating programs, processes, threads,
remote-procedure-calls, and even acts of redistribution are disappearing
in modern systems (e.g. AJAX/Web2.0).
Commercial reliance upon usage and deployment of mixed solutions
involving both GPL and non-GPL-compatible code is ill-advised unless you
have time and resources to spend on lawyers. Doing so exposes oneself
to all sorts of legal ambiguities arising out of diverging opinions and
interpretations. I'm not saying it can't be done legally, just that you
had better be prepared to defend your actions if you chose to take such
risks.
Academic efforts are less likely to be sued outright, but, in my view,
when sharing both open-source code and actual products, it is best to go
either all GPL-like/viral (e.g. GROMACS), all BSD-like/unrestricted
(e.g. PyMOL), or all original-code under your own license.
DISCLAIMER: these are just my opinions, IANAL.
Cheers,
Warren
-----Original Message-----
From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Ethan Merritt
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 12:47 PM
To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] The CCP4 license is ambiguous
On Tuesday 03 July 2007 12:09, Michel Fodje wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 10:54 -0700, Ethan Merritt wrote:
> >
> > They do have the same rights. They can use it, modify it, and
> > redistribute it. They may or may not be permitted to
distribute 3rd
> > party libraries with it, but that was true of the original
> > distributor also.
>
> The specific rights that must be transferred with the software are:
> 1 - The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0)
> 2 - The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt
it to your
> needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a
precondition for this.
> 3 - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help
your neighbor
> (freedom 2).
> 4 - The freedom to improve the program, and release your
improvements
> to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3).
> Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
Yes. That is a more complete statement of rights under the GPL.
Please note, however, that "the source code" to which you are
guaranteed access is the source code to the GPL-ed program
itself, not to pieces of the operating environment it runs in.
> If you distribute software that, in whole or in part does
not convey
> all those freedoms, it is a violation of the GPL if you use
GPL code in it.
This is an overstatement, or could be mis-read as an overstatement.
You can distribute a mixture of GPL and non-GPL code together.
Any random linux distribution is an example of this. What
you cannot do is mix GPL and non-GPL code within a single
program. This sounds clear until the lawyers start arguing
about what is or is not a single program [*]. At this point
opinions and arguments and legal precedents diverge. The
divergence in opinion is particularly notable with regard to
libraries.
>
Ethan
[*] Please note that "single program" is my own imprecise
term, not a specific legal wording that is under dispute.
--
Ethan A Merritt
--
=====================================================
Herbert J. Bernstein, Professor of Computer Science
Dowling College, Kramer Science Center, KSC 121
Idle Hour Blvd, Oakdale, NY, 11769
+1-631-244-3035
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
=====================================================
