On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 7:15 AM, Jim Washington <[email protected]> wrote: > There's GPL code in pyjs? I was unaware. But (I am not a lawyer) even > GPL is satisfied by maintaining the copyright information and providing > the source code when distributing. Luke has been a stickler for that, > and I do not see that changing under the new infrastructure. Since those > provisions have not changed, I think it is unfair to consider the code > to be a "legal minefield". The code itself has not done anything wrong. > Any possible legal proceedings between the bosses should not affect > anyone's usage of the code itself. It is all published with > open-source-ish copyrights, so it is still usable, and (did I say I am > not a lawyer?) even if there is legal nastiness, whatever code you have > git-pulled, git-cloned, or downloaded from either repository is still > free to use, subject to its included copyright information.
Copyright is not at issue here. The issue is licensing. GPL2 and Apache licenses cannot be mixed which is what is happening in pyjs at the moment. See: http://www.apache.org/licenses/GPL-compatibility.html Most of the important GPL code in pyjs is related to pyjd so it's probably (i'm not a laywer) okay to use the pyjs compiler (except for a few files) but no businesses should be distributing pyjd apps. The following files are marked as GPL (either in their source code or in the main copyright file): pyjs/jsonrpc/cgihandler/__init__.py pyjs/jsonrpc/mongrel2/__init__.py pyjd/hula.py pyjd/pywebkitgtk.py pyjd/pywebkitgtknew.py pyjd/pywebkitdfb.py pyjd/sessionhistory.py pyjd/progresslistener.py Some of this contamination was done by Luke as far as I can tell. This is where his push for "free software" becomes dangerous and possibly very costly to businesses who are naively using pyjs without actually inspecting the code for contamination. - lex
