On Tue, 02 Jul 2024 00:01:54 +0200 Serafeim Zanikolas wrote: [...] > On Sun Jun 30, 2024 at 11:50 PM CEST, Francesco Poli wrote: > > On Sun, 30 Jun 2024 22:37:22 +0200 Serafeim Zanikolas wrote: [...] > > I think some incompatibilities are missing. > > At least the following ones: > > > > Apache-2.0: GPL-2 > > the image I've originally linked to in wikipedia suggests that apache-2 is > compatible with MPL-2 which in turn is compatible with all GPL licenses. > what am I missing? [...]
GPL-2 is compatible with BSD-3-clause BSD-3-clause is compatible with a proprietary license however, GPL-2 is incompatible with a proprietary license I would say that the missing detail is that license compatibility is not a transitive relation! > > > [*] 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+ > > right, I guess that's why the wikipedia diagram distinguishes between MPL-2 > and > MPL-2-no-copyleft-exception. I think that we don't have to worry about that > because spdx.org/licenses defines a distinct license identifier for the > -no-copyleft-exception variant, and dep5 requires the use of spdx identifiers. > (which is to say that we can assume that MPL-2 is in fact MPL-2 without the > copyleft exception and therefore GPL compatible) OK, so by "MPL-2.0" we are only referring to the MPL version 2.0 license applied in such a way to be compatible with "Secondary Licenses". > > anyway, I do expect that we might have to iterate a bit on this, and I don't > trust myself to accurate copy things manually from one place to another, so > I've put the > revised matrix with all the context over at: > > > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/adequate/-/blob/tech-notes/license-incompatibility.md > > please do feel free to include patches in any follow ups here (e.g with > git format-patch) Well, before I start sending patches (for instance to reintroduce GPL-2 in the Apache-2.0 row), some questions: * are you going to completely ignore GPL-1 (assuming it's no longer so widely adopted)? I am asking because I see that you included it in the Artistic row, but not in other rows (such as GPL-3 or MPL-2.0 or ...) * why did you drop LGPL-3 from the GPL-2 row? they are incompatible... * why did you introduce LGPL-2+, LGPL-2.1, and LGPL-3 in the MPL-1.1 row? as far as I know, the LGPL licenses are (linking-)compatible with MPL-1.1 ... -- 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
pgppXEnsZ7b4_.pgp
Description: PGP signature
