On 25/04/2019 11:54, Richard Melville via lfs-dev wrote:
On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 07:49, Pierre Labastie via lfs-dev <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

    On 25/04/2019 00:34, Richard Melville via lfs-dev wrote:
    > On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 18:19, Pierre Labastie via lfs-dev
    > <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>
    > <mailto:[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote:
    >
    >     I've again modified jhalfs, in order to get rid of the GPLv2
    license.
    >     This license prevents anybody to use anything that is in
    this project,
    >     in projects with more permissive licenses. I've obtained the
    agreement
    >     of the other contributors to jhalfs, except Manuel Canales
    Esparcia,
    >     who is unreachable, to change the license to MIT.
    >
    > Is that the Expat (MIT) licence or the X11 (MIT) licence?
    >

    Expat,I think... I took the license file from github.

    It does not have the paragraph, which is in the X11 license:
    ----
    Except as contained in this notice, the name of the <copyright
    holders> shall
    not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use
    or other
    dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from the
    <copyright holders>.
    --


I was thinking that the Expat MIT licence would be compatible with Ken's GPLv2 farce analyser.

Point 2 of the GPLv2:
[...]
    b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
    whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
    part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
    parties under the terms of this License.
[...]
Clearly, if some GPLv2 Program is included in another work, that whole work should be licensed under the terms of GPLv2.

In the reversed way, it is OK: some program licensed under the Expat license, can be included into a work licensed under GPLv2. I think it's what they mean with "compatible with GPL".

I think this is also the reason why GLPv2 is not even compatible with GPLv3, unless the copyright notice tells that the work "is licensed under GPLv2 or, at the user convenience any later version".

Pierre
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/
Unsubscribe: See the above information page

Reply via email to