Python library under permissive GPL-compatible license optionally using GPL library
Dear fellas who know much more about licensing than me. I might have even asked before (since we are in a similar situation with PyMVPA/shogun) but forgot what was the summary: If we have a library X in Python, released under some GPL-compatible license (e.g. BSD-3 or Expat) and then using (optionally) some GPL code (at run time) provided by another library Y -- what are the implications? Am I wrong on any of the following statements - the project X codebase doesn't have to be relicensed to GPL - the project X can use project Y (since under GPL compatible license) - It is only at 'run time' when actual linking to the library Y happens, so project must comply with GPL but whose responsibility it is then and what needs to be enforced? - original distributor of X must have provided all the sources with modifications? But it was user's decision to use GPL'ed library - or user must somehow make sure he has the sources... (sounds dubious) - is mere ability to be used with GPL licensed library Y makes distributors of code of X required to comply with GPL? (e.g. provide modified sources) Thanks in advance for your feedback [1] http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/nipy-devel/2014-December/010707.html -- Yaroslav O. Halchenko, Ph.D. http://neuro.debian.net http://www.pymvpa.org http://www.fail2ban.org Research Scientist,Psychological and Brain Sciences Dept. Dartmouth College, 419 Moore Hall, Hinman Box 6207, Hanover, NH 03755 Phone: +1 (603) 646-9834 Fax: +1 (603) 646-1419 WWW: http://www.linkedin.com/in/yarik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141212170741.gb7...@onerussian.com
Re: Python library under permissive GPL-compatible license optionally using GPL library
Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: Dear fellas who know much more about licensing than me. I might have even asked before (since we are in a similar situation with PyMVPA/shogun) but forgot what was the summary: If we have a library X in Python, released under some GPL-compatible license (e.g. BSD-3 or Expat) and then using (optionally) some GPL code (at run time) provided by another library Y -- what are the implications? Am I wrong on any of the following statements - the project X codebase doesn't have to be relicensed to GPL - the project X can use project Y (since under GPL compatible license) - It is only at 'run time' when actual linking to the library Y happens, so project must comply with GPL but whose responsibility it is then and what needs to be enforced? - original distributor of X must have provided all the sources with modifications? But it was user's decision to use GPL'ed library - or user must somehow make sure he has the sources... (sounds dubious) - is mere ability to be used with GPL licensed library Y makes distributors of code of X required to comply with GPL? (e.g. provide modified sources) Thanks in advance for your feedback [1] http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/nipy-devel/2014-December/010707.html If the distributor were a distro like Debian IMHO: - package X can be licensed under Expat - package Y is licensed under GPL (I would probably add a warning on the description) As package X already meets GPL requeriments that's not really a problem. However, let's call X' to X + GPL-incompatible changes. Then X' and Y couldn't be used together. I suppose that if X' distributor actively encourage its users to use Y with its incompatible X', he could be deemed liable for encouraging those copyright violations. (this is quite different from simply allowing generic modules to be loaded) You may be interested in the linking-with-libreadline story. For your case I would simply document it (on a license page, when listing modules for download… it will depend on your website structure) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/548b7dc0.7010...@gmail.com
Re: Python library under permissive GPL-compatible license optionally using GPL library
On 12/12/2014 11:44 PM, Ángel González wrote: Yaroslav Halchenko wrote: Dear fellas who know much more about licensing than me. I might have even asked before (since we are in a similar situation with PyMVPA/shogun) but forgot what was the summary: If we have a library X in Python, released under some GPL-compatible license (e.g. BSD-3 or Expat) and then using (optionally) some GPL code (at run time) provided by another library Y -- what are the implications? Am I wrong on any of the following statements - the project X codebase doesn't have to be relicensed to GPL - the project X can use project Y (since under GPL compatible license) - It is only at 'run time' when actual linking to the library Y happens, so project must comply with GPL but whose responsibility it is then and what needs to be enforced? - original distributor of X must have provided all the sources with modifications? But it was user's decision to use GPL'ed library - or user must somehow make sure he has the sources... (sounds dubious) - is mere ability to be used with GPL licensed library Y makes distributors of code of X required to comply with GPL? (e.g. provide modified sources) Thanks in advance for your feedback [1] http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/nipy-devel/2014-December/010707.html If the distributor were a distro like Debian IMHO: - package X can be licensed under Expat - package Y is licensed under GPL (I would probably add a warning on the description) As package X already meets GPL requeriments that's not really a problem. However, let's call X' to X + GPL-incompatible changes. Then X' and Y couldn't be used together. From what I've read (and recall), if both X and Y are independent of each other (X can function without Y, and Y can be used without X), then it is okay for X to be GPL-incompatible -- thus allowing one to develop GPL plug-ins to closed-source programs. However, it appears that the FSF has updated their stance on this issue[1]. You cane substitute GPL-incompatible for non-free without changing the result, I believe. Of course, Debian differs from FSF on many points, but this supports what Ángel has said. [1]: http://gplv3.fsf.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ_Update#Can_I_apply_the_GPL_when_writing_a_plug-in_for_a_non-free_program.3F -- Jonathan Paugh jpa...@gmx.us -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/548b3c37.6060...@gmx.us
Re: Python library under permissive GPL-compatible license optionally using GPL library
Hi Yaroslav, Le Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 12:07:41PM -0500, Yaroslav Halchenko a écrit : If we have a library X in Python, released under some GPL-compatible license (e.g. BSD-3 or Expat) and then using (optionally) some GPL code (at run time) provided by another library Y -- what are the implications? Am I wrong on any of the following statements - the project X codebase doesn't have to be relicensed to GPL Right - the project X can use project Y (since under GPL compatible license) Right. Much of the GPL is about redistribution, not use. - It is only at 'run time' when actual linking to the library Y happens, so project must comply with GPL but whose responsibility it is then and what needs to be enforced? - original distributor of X must have provided all the sources with modifications? But it was user's decision to use GPL'ed library If the distributor of X distributes only X and asks the users to do all the extra work, then it does not have to redistribute the sources of Y. - or user must somehow make sure he has the sources... (sounds dubious) Indeed. - is mere ability to be used with GPL licensed library Y makes distributors of code of X required to comply with GPL? (e.g. provide modified sources) No, but the distributors of X would start to have obligations if they would distribute X and Y together, for instance as a binary form. In the case of Debian, since our archive contains the source packages, package-X can depend on package-Y or contain code derived from package-Y without needing extra work on the redistribution. (Of course, the maintainer of package-X has to ensure that liceses are compatible). [1] http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/nipy-devel/2014-December/010707.html If a third party download X and Y from their original distributors, and redistribute the combination as binary code without the source, then they will violate the GPL. Thus, even if X is their main interst, if they download Y because X needs it, they need to read Y's license. If X provides some download scripts for Y, it would be kind to write somewhere in the documentation that Y is GPL-licensed. Have a nice week-end, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141213001602.gc26...@falafel.plessy.net
