Jamie Webb wrote: > > > The reason I care about it in *general* is that there someday may be an > > opportunity to create a useful tool that by combining darcs and CPL'ed code > > someday, and by that time it may be too late to relicense darcs. > > But... why single out the CPL in this way? What about the MPL? Apache > license? Those are more popular than the CPL, and also > GPL-incompatible.
That is a good point. The honest answer is that I hadn't thought of those others, since my current project of getting darcs integrated with Eclipse in order to tempt my co-workers into trying darcs drew my attention to the CPL. Note that MPL 1.1 projects are often amended with a "special-exception-for-GPL" clause which makes them GPL-compatible. As for the Apache Software License 2.0, as you say it is GPL-incompatible for a rather similar reason as the CPL -- a "defense against software patents" clause which the FSF does not object to in principle. Certainly the Apache foundation wanted Apache Software License 2.0 to be GPL-compatible, and certainly the FSF desires likewise. Perhaps my proposed "special exception" clause could name the ASL 2.0 in addition to the CPL and EPL. (P.S. ASL 2.0 is not more popular than CPL/EPL, according to (somewhat unreliable) sourceforge.net statistics. However, earlier Apache licenses certainly are.) > When I download an ISO of a Linux distro, I get many programs under > many incompatible licenses in a single file. Various lawyers have > clearly concluded that it's 'safe' to do this. So, the Eclipse plugin > author is being paranoid. No. The GPL specifically allows for "mere aggregation" of programs, such as bundling two separate programs on the same CD, but disallows distribution of a "derived work" unless that derived work is under the GPL. The author of the Eclipse darcs plugin is legally disallowed from shipping a version of darcs that comes with the CPL'ed Eclipse darcs plugin. I know this doesn't seem sensible, but that's the way it is. > > This also means that if I hook up darcs and the darcs eclipse plugin > > together > > (which has so far proved to be a non-trivial task...), I am technically > > forbidden to give the resulting setup to a friend. > > Similarly untrue, unless you actually have to compile/link them together. No. The GPL doesn't restrict you from compiling/linking things together when the result is not GPL'ed. It restricts you from creating a derived work when the result is not GPL'ed. How that derived work fits together, such as by compiling/linking, by using an interpreter, by using "exec", etc. is irrelevant to the requirement to GPL the result. Regards, Zooko _______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://www.abridgegame.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
