On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Felix Krause <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > does a linking exception to the GPL require approval, or may a software be > called open source whenever it is licensed under the GPL, even when the > publisher grants the user additional rights? > > There are some licenses around that add a linking exception to the GPL. The > one I use is the GNAT Modified GPL [1]; but there are also others like the > exception in the license of the GNU Classpath project [2]. Both licenses are > not mentioned on the OSI site. > > I think the core question is, does adding a linking exception to the GPL > create a completely new license (which would need approval as open source > license), or does it still count as licensed under the GPL and thus open > source? > > I think it would be a good thing if this question was answered by the FAQ.
I second Bruce's suggestion to go talk to a lawyer. In this case, I think the Software Freedom Law Center may be able to be of assistance. If not, get an IP lawyer generally. IANAL, TINLA, and even if I were a lawyer I wouldn't suggest reading too much into this, because Real Legal Advice requires taking all of your circumstances into account. So take this as a post for ideas to discuss with a lawyer not advice. The GNU GPL v3 is pretty clear (in Section 7) in that an author of code may attach additional permissions to that code. So linking exceptions would seem to my mind to require only the permission of the author of the linking code (which seems a no-brainer). Since the work as a whole in that case is the GPL v3, permissions granted according to it, would seem in line with the license. In the GPL v2 it is less clear. At its outer limits however, it can only permit things prohibited under copyright law. Generally RMS seems to think this is not permissible, and most other people outside the FSF don't listen. The number of projects which do this are fairly large, and to my knowledge nobody has taken action against someone who creates their own code which is released under the GPL and contains a linking exception. However if using the FSF's code, the fact that they have taken a strong line here, I would suggest asking them for permission. Additionally there is the question (much discussed on this list not too long ago) whether copyright law even allows restricting secondary markets for practical tools in this way. Rick Moen and I strongly disagree on this issue. I think the clear pattern of cases including Oracle v. Google points towards a negative answer here. But the goal of getting advice from a real lawyer isn't just to prevail if you are sued, it's to avoid being sued in the first place. So get a real lawyer. Best Wishes, Chris Travers _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss
