On Sun, 30 Jun 2024 22:37:22 +0200 Serafeim Zanikolas wrote: > hello Debian legal folks,
Hello Serafeim, nice to read you! > > I'm looking for an up-to-date compatibility matrix of > /usr/share/common-licenses > (modulo documentation licenses). [...] > I've prepared the following, where the license before the colon may > be combined If I understand correctly, we are talking about linking-compatibility here. Different compatibility relationships hold for mixing (that is to say, taking parts of two works and merging them together to form a new work). > with any common license *except* the ones listed right of the colon. > do you see any mistakes? have I missed anything? > > Apache-2.0: > Artistic: > BSD: > GPL-2: GPL-3, MPL-1.1 > GPL-2+: MPL-1.1 > GPL-3: GPL-2, MPL-1.1 > LGPL-2: MPL-1.1 > LGPL-2.1: MPL-1.1 > LGPL-3: MPL-1.1 > MPL-1.1: GPL-2, GPL-2+, GPL-3, LGPL-2+, LGPL-2.1, LGPL-3 > MPL-2.0: > OpenSSL: (GPL licenses ommitted here due to > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SystemLibraryException) I think some incompatibilities are missing. At least the following ones: Apache-2.0: GPL-2 Artistic: GPL-1, GPL-2, GPL-3 BSD: GPL-2: Apache-2.0, Artistic, GPL-1, GPL-3, LGPL-3, MPL-1.1, MPL-2.0[*] GPL-2+: Artistic, GPL-1, MPL-1.1, MPL-2.0[*] GPL-3: Artistic, GPL-1, GPL-2, MPL-1.1, MPL-2.0[*] LGPL-2: GPL-1, MPL-1.1, MPL-2.0[*] LGPL-2.1: GPL-1, MPL-1.1, MPL-2.0[*] LGPL-3: GPL-1, GPL-2, MPL-1.1, MPL-2.0[*] MPL-1.1: GPL-1, GPL-2, GPL-2+, GPL-3 MPL-2.0[*]: GPL-1, GPL-2, GPL-2+, GPL-3 OpenSSL: (GPL licenses ommitted here due to https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SystemLibraryException) [*] Please note that the compatibility status of MPL-2.0 is more complicated than a simple yes or no: it is compatible with "Secondary Licenses", unless it is explicitly made incompatible with the notice described in Exhibit B or the covered software was previously available under MPL-1.1 or earlier, but not also dual-licensed under a "Secondary License". "Secondary Licenses" are: GPL-2+, LGPL-2.1+, AfferoGPL-3.0+ A terrible headache?!? I think so, that's why I abhor MPL-2.0 ... > > thanks, > Serafeim You're welcome! Anyway, let's wait for some other debian-legal participants' take on the matter... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgpE9FVmzzNid.pgp
Description: PGP signature
