Re: Combining Artistic|GPL-1+ with GPL-2 and LGPL-3+
[Please continue to Cc me on replies. Thanks] -=| Walter Landry, Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 05:08:14AM -0800 |=- MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote: Damyan Ivanov d...@debian.org wrote: Most of the code is licensed under the same terms as Perl itself, [...] In addition to that, some icons are licensed under LGPL-3+, and some more icons are licensed under GPL-2. From how I understand it, if we choose GPL-2 for the main code, that still leaves the combination of GPL-2 (code and some .png icons) and LGPL-3+ (.png icons). Is such aggregation OK? If it's mere aggregation, I believe each stays under their own licence. Just to be clear, if it is not mere aggregation, then it is not ok. If the LGPL-3+ icons are required for the program to operate correctly, that is a hint that licenses need to be compatible with GPL-2. Reading GPL-2, mere aggregation is when two independent works sit on the same volume of a storage or distribution medium. In the case I am after, both works are in the same upstream tarball, and in the same .deb. The files are separate, i.e. no compilation in the C source -- object code sense is taking place. The icons are loaded at runtime and used in the user interface. Does this sound like a mere aggregation? -- damJabberID: d...@jabber.minus273.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Combining Artistic|GPL-1+ with GPL-2 and LGPL-3+
Damyan Ivanov d...@debian.org wrote: [Please continue to Cc me on replies. Thanks] [...] In the case I am after, both works are in the same upstream tarball, and in the same .deb. The files are separate, i.e. no compilation in the C source -- object code sense is taking place. The icons are loaded at runtime and used in the user interface. Does this sound like a mere aggregation? Yes, in my opinion. If you can change the icons at runtime without ill-effect (within reason - it's OK if the new icons must be the same size, for example) and it's just that they're in the same tar volume, that seems like mere aggregation to me. See also http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation Where's the line between two separate programs, and one program with two parts? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged). I suggest that the icons are used only as runtime data and no information is interchanged with them. Hope that explains, -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Combining Artistic|GPL-1+ with GPL-2 and LGPL-3+
[Please continue to Cc me on replies. Thanks] -=| MJ Ray, Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 02:15:21PM + |=- Damyan Ivanov d...@debian.org wrote: [...] The files are separate, i.e. no compilation in the C source -- object code sense is taking place. The icons are loaded at runtime and used in the user interface. Does this sound like a mere aggregation? Yes, in my opinion. If you can change the icons at runtime without ill-effect (within reason - it's OK if the new icons must be the same size, for example) and it's just that they're in the same tar volume, that seems like mere aggregation to me. See also http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation I suggest that the icons are used only as runtime data and no information is interchanged with them. Hope that explains, It does indeed. Thank you all for helping me put the pieces together. -- damJabberID: d...@jabber.minus273.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Combining Artistic|GPL-1+ with GPL-2 and LGPL-3+
MJ Ray m...@phonecoop.coop wrote: Damyan Ivanov d...@debian.org wrote: [Please Cc me on replies. Thanks] Most of the code is licensed under the same terms as Perl itself, [...] In addition to that, some icons are licensed under LGPL-3+, and some more icons are licensed under GPL-2. From how I understand it, if we choose GPL-2 for the main code, that still leaves the combination of GPL-2 (code and some .png icons) and LGPL-3+ (.png icons). Is such aggregation OK? If it's mere aggregation, I believe each stays under their own licence. Just to be clear, if it is not mere aggregation, then it is not ok. If the LGPL-3+ icons are required for the program to operate correctly, that is a hint that licenses need to be compatible with GPL-2. Cheers, Walter Landry wlan...@caltech.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Combining Artistic|GPL-1+ with GPL-2 and LGPL-3+
[Please Cc me on replies. Thanks] My upstream uses several licenses and this makes be feel a bit uneasy deciding if they can be combined. Please advice. Most of the code is licensed under the same terms as Perl itself, which means either Artistic license, or (at your opinion) GPL (any version). In addition to that, some icons are licensed under LGPL-3+, and some more icons are licensed under GPL-2. From how I understand it, if we choose GPL-2 for the main code, that still leaves the combination of GPL-2 (code and some .png icons) and LGPL-3+ (.png icons). Is such aggregation OK? TIA -- damJabberID: d...@jabber.minus273.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
