> > > > > > > I guess I could write an initial protocol specification - but it would > > > not be complete and I wouldn't be able to relicense my library to > > > LGPL anyway. > > > > > > So I guess I have convinced myself that it is not worth the effort > > > trying. Time is probably better spent coding ;) And that's OK too, it > is not > > > that big of a deal anyway. > > > > Or think about following. You insist that your Java library is > > derivative work from the C program. OK. However, I believe a > > "translation into other languages" doesn't mean you make changes into > > the workflow by code restructuring, introducing another data > > structures, classes and so on. More such changes you made, less it just > > a "translation" and more an inspiration. Often I read in code not > > "based on" but "inspired by". > > > > Anyway, you have written every line in Java. This means you're a > > copyright holder on this. Thus you're allowed to license your work as > > you wish. In case you still insist it is a derivative work, you're > > required to allow the usage of your code under GPL. But! As a copyright > > holder you're allowed to give an arbitrary license additionally and > > even on a per case basis. > > > > This was my opinion. Additional references to approve or disapprove are > > welcome :) > > You might be right but I am a bit hesitant. > > > http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/58338/when-porting-code-must-i-follow-the-original-license > > http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/90232/original-author-rights-in-a-licensed-software-project?rq=1 > > http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/86754/is-it-possible-to-rewrite-every-line-of-an-open-source-project-in-a-slightly-dif
These are talking about different situations: - 'porting' in the sense of making code run on a different platform while still having some code in common - line-by-line rewrite or translation - writing a new program using the rsync source as documentation of the protocol, as you are doing In my (not a lawyer) opinion, the last of them does not create a copyright derivative, and (separately) I don't object to you doing that on GPL'd work that I wrote. I would consider the first two to be a violation. I think you have a couple of cheap options to get some clarity: - mail the other key authors listed above explaining what you're doing and ask if they object - mail the FSF or SFLC as custodians of the L/GPL > I think that the best thing would be if rsync would be split into a > library part (LGPL) and application part (GPL). This could make the > rsync protocol even more used. > > But again, it could be quite some substantial work, both coding (?) > but also getting permissions from previous contributors to relicense > the library part.
-- Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid omitting the mailing list. To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html