On 03/10/2013 07:15 PM, Matt Shaver wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Mar 2013 08:01:24 -0600
> EBo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Looks like we need to email EFF or GNU for a determination. Matt
>> what you say is that 0MQ allows linking to anything, but GPLv2
>> requires that anything linked must then convey GPLv2, then GPL is the
>> problem and LCNC cannot use 0MQ due to now necessarly needing to
>> convey the conditions of GPLv2. I will say though that it does not
>> make sense that a GPLv2 must only use GPLv2 libraries and cannot link
>> to anything else.
>
> We don't need to do anything :) We have the explicit, written
> permission of the copyright owners to use 0MQ in our GPLv2 project as
> long as we share with them any changes we make, if any, to the actual
> 0MQ source code. Specifically, they say:
>
> "To be clear: you can use libzmq (and any other 0MQ project with the
> same license) in a GPLv2 project, both as a dynamic library, and in a
> static link. If you make patches, you need to publish them, as usual.
> There's no reason there would be any restrictions for GPLv2 projects
> since the license is designed to work with all application licenses
> including commercial closed source."
I believe you're right that nobody will get sued if the LCNC project
distributes binaries that link to ZMQ. It's great that we have Pieter's
permission. We don't know for sure if he's the only copyright owner, of
course. In LCNC's case, the general thinking in the license-related
threads has been that we need the permission of every contributor who
contributed a single line of code in order to relicense (which Pieter is
doing here).
Anyway, the license Pieter just granted over email doesn't matter much
to me. I'm worried about the published license. As it stands, we won't
be able to get this code into the big distributions.
The distros' lawyers look at the published license, as included in or
pointed to by the software. They won't consider a separate license
granted in a mailing list thread.
> P.S. We are bound by the warranty, anti-tivoization, patent, and other
> terms of the (L)GPLv3 if we use 0MQ.
This essentially says that we're relicensing LCNC. The existing
GPLv2-only license says that linked libraries must be 'conveyed' under
GPLv2. GPLv2 doesn't mention these restrictions, and explicitly states
that no additional restrictions may be applied. Some LCNC contributor
could try to sue if the project released binaries. Of course I don't
see this happening in real life (and they'd have to show damages if it
really did happen, something else I don't see), but I can guarantee the
lawyers will point this out if LCNC is packaged for the big distros.
John
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symantec Endpoint Protection 12 positioned as A LEADER in The Forrester
Wave(TM): Endpoint Security, Q1 2013 and "remains a good choice" in the
endpoint security space. For insight on selecting the right partner to
tackle endpoint security challenges, access the full report.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/symantec-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Emc-developers mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-developers
