On Wed, 2005-09-21 at 18:26 -0700, Jim Self wrote: > Todd Berman wrote: > >If I am writing a program under a non-GPL compat license (and this does > >not mean commercial, there are plenty of popular OSI compat licenses > >that are not GPL compat, like the Apache License for example). I can not > >use a GPL library or application. > > That interpretation seems to me to be at odds with what I read from the > Apache Foundation: > > http://www.apache.org/foundation/licence-FAQ.html#GPL > "It is the unofficial position of The Apache Software Foundation that the > Apache license > is compatible with the GPL. However, the Free Software Foundation holds a > different > position"... >
Yes, the FSF believes the GPL and the Apache license to be incompat. And considering they wrote the GPL, I am inclined to err on the side of caution. Plenty of apps replace dependencies due to Apache license usage. There are a fairly large number of licenses that the FSF believes to be GPL compat. This means your GPL code and someone elses <insert 'incompat' license name here> can not interact. Sorry, you lose. Write a replacement library. Have fun. It is pretty bad news when it comes up. > and a more in depth discussion: > > http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html > > The issue seems to revolve around questions involving interaction between > patent claims > and copyrights that seem to be mostly moot. > > >Not to mention the issues of the patent-bomb > >GPL/LGPL clause that prevents a GPL mp3 decoding library from ever being > >distributed legally, > > That's an interesting concept I hadn't heard of before. Looking on google for > "patent-bomb > GPL turned up things like Mono and Microsoft and reference to a patent bomb > in the Apache > 1.1 license. ??? Looking for "mp3 GPL" turned up what looked to me like a > long list of > GPL MP3 players... Doesn't surprise me, Alan Cox is a huge fan of the word patent bomb, and the gnome/mono mailing list conversations are high high up as far as page-rank, they get linked too far too often. However, This is why RedHat doesn't distribute mp3 support. Here are the relevant sections of the GPL that prevent this distribution: Section 7: If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program. If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances. It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice. This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License. Sorry to quote a huge chunk of text, but I believe taking bits and pieces out of context makes it harder to understand. Basically, what this sections means is that if a GPL'd mp3 decoding library is found to be violating a patent (which they all are), you can not distribute the library. This is the patent-bomb. This is also why the GPL can be bad. Don't get me wrong, I am a huge fan of opensource, and the GPL does has its place in opensource. But assuming that GPL = Good and Anything else = bad is just naive. Different licenses exist for tons of reasons, and the GPL is no better or worse than any of the others. And no software is prevented from exposing 'vendor lock-in' or 'incompatabile implementations' by being GPL. The license doesn't enter into the equation for these sorts of issues. Particularly in the Healthcare IT world, where the application-server model is so easily attainable, and the GPL v2 can be circumvented without any effort. --Todd ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php _______________________________________________ Hardhats-members mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/hardhats-members
