On 15/11/2007, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You first need to be very carefull to find out the license for this > software. It does not mention the GPL version number, which makes > it hard to find the authors will. > > Given the fact that a lot of the files have not been touched since the > GPLv3 has been published, the Author most likely intended to put the > software under GPLv2. > > Given the fact that it is illegal to agree on a license that is unknown at the > time a contact has been signed, the old files cannot ever be under GPLv3. As > GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible, we need to asume that CaRMetal is under > GPLv2.
It is possible the licence uses the "version two or later" version of the GPL, which would allow the software to be distributed under GPL v.3, but I agree it looks more likely that the current version is under GPL v.2. If GPLv2 applies then the analysis is much the same as in my previous email, but the assessment that has to be made (based on clause 3 of GPLv2) is whether colorchooser is either: a. a module contained in CaRMetal; b. an "associated interface definition file" of CaRMetal; or c. a "script used to control compilation and installation of the executable" (I'm guessing "no" to that one). I'll leave it to the coders to answer that one. If the answer to any of those questions is "yes" then we next have to consider whether it falls under GPL v2's "major components" exception, which is narrower than that in GPL v3. GPLv3's definition of "major component" includes "a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if any) on which the executable work runs, *or a compiler used to produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it*" (emphasis added). The equivalent provision in GPLv2 only refers to "anything that is normally distributed ... with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs". It seems pretty clear that colorchooser doesn't meet that criterion.But that is only an issue if colorchooser meets one of the criteria set out in (a) to (c) above. > >CarMetal uses colorchooser https://colorchooser.dev.java.net/ wich is > >CDDL licensed. > > If colorchooser has been developed independently from CaRMetal, and only > CaRMetal calls colorchooser, it is indeed similar to what happens with mkisofs > and the license mix you describe is legal too. As set out above, the question is whether colorchooser fits within the GPL v2 wording covering (a) modules, (b) interface definition files or (c) build scripts. If CaRMetal's "calling" colorchooser brings it into one of those headings, then there is a licensing issue at that point. But I don't know the answer to that one. John -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
