On 08/12/2012 01:11 PM, Greg Hellings wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Chris Little <chris...@crosswire.org> wrote:
I'm not sure I see the distinction. For GPLv2 software A to be used by or
incorporated in some other software B, GPLv2 must be compatible with
software B's license. The set of licenses that GPLv2 is compatible with
consists of exactly and only GPLv2. (This is distinct from the set of
licenses that are compatible with GPLv2, which includes GPLv2, BSD, and many
others.) GPLv2 and GPLv3 are mutually incompatible.
I think you're understanding "compatible" more narrowly than it
actually means. Here is the quote from the email exchange with the
FSF, asking specifically about public domain:
The crucial words here are "or a GPL-compatible license".
Public domain is compatible with the GPL.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PublicDomain
Therefore this is ok and the application code can be public domain,
while the library is GPL.
You might not understand, but this is how the FSF explains it. An
application may be non-GPL, so long as its license is compatible with
the GPL. That is, the license has to be one which would permit the
application to utilize GPL libraries. Any of the licenses on the
compatability list are OK for the application.
I would guess that the FSF's respondent either misunderstood the
question that was posed, answered for the reverse (incorporating
PD-licensed software into GPL-licensed software), or simply didn't know
what he was talking about. Given the final sentence, I would lean
towards the last option. I'm not sure what "or a GPL-compatible license"
quotes from, as that is not a phrase present within GPLv2.
The FSF's staff aren't the judicial branch or anything, so they don't
get to re-interpret what was meant by the GPL after the fact. The GPL
licenses have enumerated rights & requirements, those sets of rights &
requirements are not identical for the two licenses, and both licenses
prohibit any addition or removal of rights from the licensed work or its
derivatives---hence they are inherently mutually incompatible licenses.
The page cited by FSF's respondent actually explicitly states that GPLv2
is not GPLv3-compatible and GPLv3 is not GPLv2-compatible (unless it's
the "version 2 or later" version of licensing). So, in addition to the
links I posted previously, there's the FSF's explicit statement on GPL
inter-version compatibility, which is the specific case in question.
Crucially, license compatibility is directional. PD and BSD are
GPL-compatible, which means PD and BSD software may be incorporated into
GPL software. GPL is not PD- or BSD-compatible, and that would be
requisite to incorporation of GPL software into PD or BSD software.
It's permissible to release code that makes use of the SWORD API or
other GPLv2 software available under another license _in addition to_
GPLv2, but that code must also be GPLv2-licensed and any binaries must
be licensed GPLv2-only. (Section 2b and the paragraph following section
2c of GPLv2 make this explicit.)
If it were permissible to license software that links against GPLv2
software using any 'GPL-compatible' license, then one could trivially
write a library that simply replicates the SWORD API and passes calls on
to the SWORD library itself. Then one could have a BSD-, GPLv3-, LGPL-,
or PD-licensed SWORD API via this intermediary, and by the same method,
anyone could switch the license of any GPLv2 or v3 library to some other
'GPL-compatible' license. I hope it's clear that that is not the case.
The whole concept of license virality would fall apart under this
assumption, and literally any piece of GPL software could be converted
to public domain via this means. (Conversely, it is permissible to write
such libraries that replicate BSD-, LGPL-, or PD-licensed APIs and
license those replicating libraries as GPL, though obviously it makes
more sense to simply re-license under the more restrictive GPL if that's
your aim. We effectively re-license any time we link SWORD against
BSD/MIT libraries.)
A modification of SWORD itself (including of the bindings included
with the library) would need GPLv2 licensing to be released. THAT is
the restrictiveness of GPLv2. But as long as I'm just binding or
linking against the library, I don't have to be limited to GPLv2.
GPLv2 compatible is OK.
What you're describing is roughly LGPL. Actual LGPL doesn't have any
restriction on GPL-compatibility of software employing the LGPL library,
but that's the nearest thing to what you describe.
--Chris
_______________________________________________
sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org
http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
