Agreed... But not my call. Waiting for Paul to decide. -Joseph
============================================================================ On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 13:38 -0700, Bob Kashani wrote: > On Sun, 2005-09-18 at 12:30 -0400, Joseph E. Sacco, PhD wrote: > > There are some yet to be resolved licensing issues with openh323/pwlib > > that Paul was looking into. > > pwlib/work/main.d/pwlib-1.8.7/ReadMe.txt under license: > > openh323 has the same license. > > ---snip--- > > 9. Licensing > ------------ > > The bulk of this library is licensed under the MPL (Mozilla Public > License) > version 1.0. In simple terms this license allows you to use the library > for > any purpose, commercial or otherwise, provided the library is kept in > tact > as a separate entity and any changes made to the library are made > publicly > available under the same (MPL) license. It is important to realise that > that > refers to changes to the library and not your application that is merely > linked to the library. > > Note that due to a restriction in the GPL, any application you write > that > uses anything another than GPL, eg our library with MPL, is technically > in > breach of the GPL license. However, it should be noted that MPL does not > care about the license of the final application, and as only the author > of > the GPL application is in breach of his own license and is unlikely to > sue > themselves for that breach, in practice there is no problem with a GPL > application using an MPL or any other commercial library. > > ---snip--- > > It seems ok to me. Both Fedora (Red Hat) and Ubuntu (Debian) ship > pwlib/openh323 so it seems absurd to me that we wouldn't include a > garball for them. Especially when you consider that we don't ship any > software, just a link to the software. Paul...? > > Bob > -- joseph_sacco [at] comcast [dot] net -- garnome-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/garnome-list
