On 24 Jul 2000, James Youngman wrote:
> "Braden N. McDaniel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It doesn't matter that WinCVS doesn't link with the CVS code. What matters
> > is that WinCVS claims to be GPL'd *and* relies on a library *whose
> > redistribution terms conflict with those of the GPL*. (Note that I'm
> > taking the original poster at his word here about the level of dependency
> > on the CodeJock library, as well as that library's license.)
>
> The copyright holder cannot be in violation of their own copyright
> license.
I don't think that (the WinCVS author's copyright) is the issue. And upon
closer inspection, I don't think there's necessarily a conflict here--just
an annoying inconvenience.
Upon rereading the CJ license, it does not look like it restricts
redistribution of derivative works (I think I implied otherwise in my
previous posting). It *does* restrict redistribution of the library
itself. For instance, there is no problem with commercial redistribution
of GPL software (as long as the source is available). There *are*
restrictions on commercial redistribution of the CodeJock library.
If WinCVS is dynamically linked with the CJ library and distributed
separately, I see no problem. However, there may be "issues" with
statically linking WinCVS with the CJ library and redistributing that. I
could be wrong, but I don't think GPL redistribution terms fall within the
definition of "non-commercial use" in clause 3 of the CodeJock license.
Braden
