Can we please just stop this thread? Like it or not it is *not*
compatable with the GPL so give it a rest. If you don't believe it then
ask Richard Stallman at the FSF. Since he says it's incompatable, we are
not going to link with it.
I really don't want to be discussing legal dribble anymore.
Jeff
On 11 Apr 2001 10:40:06 -0500, Matthew Vanecek wrote:
> On 11 Apr 2001 09:00:51 +0930, Not Zed wrote:
> > Go read the page i referenced earlier.
> >
> > End of thread.
>
> I did read the page you referenced earlier, which is how I got to the
> OpenLDAP license. The page you referenced is a knee-jerk reaction to a
> license which does not have "GPL" as a name.
>
> The OpenLDAP license is not incompatible with the GPL. The page you
> reference states that it is, because the OpenLDAP says you may not use
> the OpenLDAP name to advertise derivative works, and that you may not
> use "OpenLDAP" as part of the name of your derivative work, without
> prior written permission. I've read the GPL, and nowhere in there does
> it mention ANYTHING about advertising or naming conventions of works.
>
> The license is the final authority, and not some extremist FSF fanatic's
> opinion. The text and spirit of the OpenLDAP license is very
> complementary to the text and spirit of the GPL.
>
> The FSF has issues with any license which is not titled "GNU GENERAL
> PUBLIC LICENSE". They would even like to dispense with the LGPL,
> according to some more extreme rhetoric I've read in the past. Those
> issues, however, do not mean that a given license is 'incompatible' with
> the GPL.
>
> The OpenLDAP is *not* incompatible with the GPL, and it *is* ok, both
> legally and spiritually, to distribute binary code linked to the
> OpenLDAP libraries--especially since Evolution presumably only uses the
> proffered interface.
>
> Consider xmcd--when Motif was non-free, it was still linked to Motif,
> and under the GPL, and there weren't any license compatibility issues.
> How is this different?
>
> >
> >
> > On 10 Apr 2001 10:20:28 -0500, Matthew Vanecek wrote:
> > > On 10 Apr 2001 12:18:05 +0930, Not Zed wrote:
> > > > For now, you will HAVE to compile it yourself, we cannot distribute such
> > > > binaries as it voilates the license we have chosen to use for Evolution
> > > > - the GPL.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Simply because the Oh-So-Powerful-And-Wonderful FSF says that a license
> > > is incompatible with the GPL does not necessarily make it so. I read
> > > the OpenLDAP license, such as it is, and I fail to see the conflict.
> > > You're not saying "Use Evolution because it supports OpenLDAP!"
> > > (although I have trouble seeing how one could POSSIBLY consider
> > > Evolution a derivative work from OpenLDAP!), and you don't call your
> > > product "OpenLDAP Evolution" or "Evolution-OpenLDAP" or anything like
> > > that.
> > >
> > > The only possible obstacle I could detect (using a VERY large leap and
> > > twisting as hard as I could, to make it an obstacle), is in section 6 of
> > > the OpenLDAP license--you must give OpenLDAP due credit. Well, duh!
> > > ("We used OpenLDAP at http://www.openldap.org" -- problem solved!).
> > >
> > > Distributing binary distributions of Evolution linked to OpenLDAP is not
> > > a problem because:
> > >
> > > * Evolution is not a derivative work of OpenLDAP
> > > * Even if Evolution *were* a derivative work, it does not use
> > > the name "OpenLDAP" for promotional purposes
> > > * Even if Evolution *were* a derivative work, it does not use
> > > "OpenLDAP" anywhere in its name
> > > * There are no restrictions in the OpenLDAP license on
> > > distributing code which is linked to the OpenLDAP libraries,
> > > nor are the re-distribution restrictions of OpenLDAP
> > > incompatible with GPL (redistribution must contain a copy of
> > > the copyright notice--sounds vaguely GPL-ish to me...)
> > >
> > > I've read the GPL as distributed by Evoluiton (v2, 1991), and the
> > > OpenLDAP license
> > > (http://www.openldap.org/software/release/license.html), both several
> > > times, and I fail to see the conflict.
> > >
> > > I caution you to pay less attention to RMS and more attention to
> > > reality. The two are not always in sync with each other...
> > >
> > > --
> > > Matthew Vanecek
> > > perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);'
> > > ********************************************************************************
> > > For 93 million miles, there is nothing between the sun and my shadow except me.
> > > I'm always getting in the way of something...
> >
> >
>
> --
> Matthew Vanecek
> perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5,(41*2),sqrt(7056),(unpack(c,H)-2),oct(115),10);'
> ********************************************************************************
> For 93 million miles, there is nothing between the sun and my shadow except me.
> I'm always getting in the way of something...
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.helixcode.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
_______________________________________________
evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.helixcode.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
