> Behalf Of Ethan Merritt > > What you cannot do is mix GPL and non-GPL code within a single > program. This sounds clear until the lawyers start arguing > about what is or is not a single program [*]. At this point > opinions and arguments and legal precedents diverge.
[*] "Ay, there's the rub", which is why I am such a big fan of non-GPL/non-viral open-source licenses, and especially so nowadays given that the lines separating programs, processes, threads, remote-procedure-calls, and even acts of redistribution are disappearing in modern systems (e.g. AJAX/Web2.0). Commercial reliance upon usage and deployment of mixed solutions involving both GPL and non-GPL-compatible code is ill-advised unless you have time and resources to spend on lawyers. Doing so exposes oneself to all sorts of legal ambiguities arising out of diverging opinions and interpretations. I'm not saying it can't be done legally, just that you had better be prepared to defend your actions if you chose to take such risks. Academic efforts are less likely to be sued outright, but, in my view, when sharing both open-source code and actual products, it is best to go either all GPL-like/viral (e.g. GROMACS), all BSD-like/unrestricted (e.g. PyMOL), or all original-code under your own license. DISCLAIMER: these are just my opinions, IANAL. Cheers, Warren > -----Original Message----- > From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Ethan Merritt > Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 12:47 PM > To: CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK > Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] The CCP4 license is ambiguous > > On Tuesday 03 July 2007 12:09, Michel Fodje wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-07-03 at 10:54 -0700, Ethan Merritt wrote: > > > > > > They do have the same rights. They can use it, modify it, and > > > redistribute it. They may or may not be permitted to > distribute 3rd > > > party libraries with it, but that was true of the original > > > distributor also. > > > > The specific rights that must be transferred with the software are: > > 1 - The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0) > > 2 - The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt > it to your > > needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a > precondition for this. > > 3 - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help > your neighbor > > (freedom 2). > > 4 - The freedom to improve the program, and release your > improvements > > to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). > > Access to the source code is a precondition for this. > > Yes. That is a more complete statement of rights under the GPL. > Please note, however, that "the source code" to which you are > guaranteed access is the source code to the GPL-ed program > itself, not to pieces of the operating environment it runs in. > > > If you distribute software that, in whole or in part does > not convey > > all those freedoms, it is a violation of the GPL if you use > GPL code in it. > > This is an overstatement, or could be mis-read as an overstatement. > You can distribute a mixture of GPL and non-GPL code together. > Any random linux distribution is an example of this. What > you cannot do is mix GPL and non-GPL code within a single > program. This sounds clear until the lawyers start arguing > about what is or is not a single program [*]. At this point > opinions and arguments and legal precedents diverge. The > divergence in opinion is particularly notable with regard to > libraries. > > Ethan > > [*] Please note that "single program" is my own imprecise > term, not a specific legal wording that is under dispute. > > -- > Ethan A Merritt > > > >
