On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:35:07AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > On Mon, Jan 10, 2005 at 11:21:24AM -0500, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > IRAF has a kind of custom government license which was previously > > decided [0] to be free. IRAF wants to link with NCAR which is (now) > > available under the GPL. Is that allowed, even though IRAF is not > > GPL? IRAF is not a "derivitive" of NCAR, although the resulting > > executable binaries would be, I guess. GPL seems to say so: [...]
> > If that is the case, then it seems that I should consider creating a > > complementary NCAR package ("when you distribute them as separate > > works"), on which IRAF would have build and runtime dependencies (I > > don't know if the upstream NCAR build intends for the libraries to be > > shared .so files, or if they even intend for the libraries to be > > installed on a runtime-only system, but no matter). > > There's no need to split them up if you wouldn't otherwise. That's not > what the above clause is talking about. It is maybe complicated than I let on; IRAF includes code from NCAR 1.00, but under a nonfree license. NCAR 4.X is GPL, and includes mostly-minor differences (some bugfixes, I think, and some changes that the IRAF group made). I contacted NCAR about making a statement that 1.00 was available under the GPL, but thats an impossibility, because they don't want the overhead of making source code available and similar. So, I figure I'll package libncar-graphics, make IRAF {,build-}depend on it, and include in the library any changes necessary to make IRAF work (possibly as modifications to the code, and possibly as separate routines). Thanks, Justin