Bug#533569: Mixture of Code unter GPL-2+ and UnRAR license compatible?
On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:32:41 +0100 Tomáš Bžatek wrote: On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 22:47 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: Since the unrar license is (non-free and) GPL-incompatible, it is my understanding that anyone who distributes the linked resulting library would violate the copyright of the authors of the GPLv2+'ed part. In order to allow such a linking, the copyright holders of the GPLv2+'ed part can add an exception (that is to say, an additional permission), as explained in http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs See also http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs Thank you for your clarification and for the links, very useful. You're welcome. Is it allowed to load such library into a GPLv2+ application (technically speaking it's linking again, in runtime)? I think that this also requires an exception granted by the GPLv2+'ed application copyright holders, as above. Understood (and that's explained in the FAQ too). What about other plugins, dynamically linked to a GPLv2-with-exception application? Is it possible to use pure GPLv2 plugin with it or does it need to be granted an exception as well? There's only an application-to-plugin relationship, no plugin-to-plugin calls. This is a difficult question. Please bear in mind that I am not a lawyer: if you need legal advice, you'd better hire an actual lawyer. That said, I think the answer should be something like it depends. Please see http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation Moreover, take into account that all the FAQ by FSF is written following the FSF's legal theory of linking, which has not yet been tested in court, but should be taken as valid, in order to stay on the safe side... I'm not copyright holder of all GPL2 sources linked to other plugins (neither can request an exception either). I think one can always politely request: maybe with little hope to see his/her request fulfilled, but anyway... Would the requirement to have everything licensed under GPL2-with-exception prevent me to distribute/run other plugins? Please see above: as I told, it's a hard question... Also, will such exception allow to keep the DFSG designation on all components except the non-free ones? The exception is an additional permission (which can even be removed by a re-distributor, should it become useless), hence it cannot hurt: since GPLv2+'ed works already comply with the DFSG, I would say that adding the exception will not affect their DFSG-compliance. I hope this helps. P.S.: I think that maybe all this mess is not worth doing... maybe the best long-term solution is searching or developing a Free (GPLv2+ compatible) UnRAR replacement. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpKEtscS9qpM.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#533569: Mixture of Code unter GPL-2+ and UnRAR license compatible?
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 22:47 +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: Since the unrar license is (non-free and) GPL-incompatible, it is my understanding that anyone who distributes the linked resulting library would violate the copyright of the authors of the GPLv2+'ed part. In order to allow such a linking, the copyright holders of the GPLv2+'ed part can add an exception (that is to say, an additional permission), as explained in http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs See also http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs Thank you for your clarification and for the links, very useful. Is it allowed to load such library into a GPLv2+ application (technically speaking it's linking again, in runtime)? I think that this also requires an exception granted by the GPLv2+'ed application copyright holders, as above. Understood (and that's explained in the FAQ too). What about other plugins, dynamically linked to a GPLv2-with-exception application? Is it possible to use pure GPLv2 plugin with it or does it need to be granted an exception as well? There's only an application-to-plugin relationship, no plugin-to-plugin calls. I'm not copyright holder of all GPL2 sources linked to other plugins (neither can request an exception either). Would the requirement to have everything licensed under GPL2-with-exception prevent me to distribute/run other plugins? Also, will such exception allow to keep the DFSG designation on all components except the non-free ones? Thanks, -- Tomas Bzatek -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#533569: Mixture of Code unter GPL-2+ and UnRAR license compatible?
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009 19:11:18 +0100 Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: [...] Thomas has said, he would re-license the unrar/unrar.c, but the ones in common/ would not be possible. With the above in my understanding of your explanation, this will still make it inpossible to redistribute tuxcmd-modules-unrar, right? As far as I understand, adding the exception to unrar.c alone would *not* be enough. All the GPL'ed code that links with the non-free library needs to have the exception. Many thanks again for your reply, You're welcome. Bye. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpladtNlzOxc.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#533569: Mixture of Code unter GPL-2+ and UnRAR license compatible?
Hi! First of all, many thanks for your reply, Frencesco. On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 10:47:17PM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote: On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:47:38 +0100 Tomáš Bžatek wrote: let me shed some light on source files structure: ./common/ -- GPLv2+, shared core across several modules, cannot be relicensed (LGPLv2+ might be an option though). ./unrar/unrar.c -- GPLv2+, may be relicensed if needed. It's a bridge between two APIs. ./unrar/unrar/ -- original unrar sources (there might be few modifications, but I hope to solve them soon, so we can have unmodified unrar sources there). All these sources are statically linked to a single shared object (library), which is being loaded by the master application. Now the question is: is it allowed to statically link object files with different licenses? If these licenses are incompatible with each other, as it is the case here, the result is a legally undistributable work, AFAICT. Since the unrar license is (non-free and) GPL-incompatible, it is my understanding that anyone who distributes the linked resulting library would violate the copyright of the authors of the GPLv2+'ed part. In order to allow such a linking, the copyright holders of the GPLv2+'ed part can add an exception (that is to say, an additional permission), as explained in http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs See also http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs Is it allowed to load such library into a GPLv2+ application (technically speaking it's linking again, in runtime)? I think that this also requires an exception granted by the GPLv2+'ed application copyright holders, as above. So this means, if upstream (in this case Tomas) will add an explicit permission, but this permission should be placed in each file to which this exception is granted. I do not know if Tomas would do that. I will wait for this to be clarified. Thomas has said, he would re-license the unrar/unrar.c, but the ones in common/ would not be possible. With the above in my understanding of your explanation, this will still make it inpossible to redistribute tuxcmd-modules-unrar, right? Many thanks again for your reply, Bests Salvatore signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#533569: Mixture of Code unter GPL-2+ and UnRAR license compatible?
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 18:47:38 +0100 Tomáš Bžatek wrote: Hi all, Hi! let me shed some light on source files structure: ./common/ -- GPLv2+, shared core across several modules, cannot be relicensed (LGPLv2+ might be an option though). ./unrar/unrar.c -- GPLv2+, may be relicensed if needed. It's a bridge between two APIs. ./unrar/unrar/ -- original unrar sources (there might be few modifications, but I hope to solve them soon, so we can have unmodified unrar sources there). All these sources are statically linked to a single shared object (library), which is being loaded by the master application. Now the question is: is it allowed to statically link object files with different licenses? If these licenses are incompatible with each other, as it is the case here, the result is a legally undistributable work, AFAICT. Since the unrar license is (non-free and) GPL-incompatible, it is my understanding that anyone who distributes the linked resulting library would violate the copyright of the authors of the GPLv2+'ed part. In order to allow such a linking, the copyright holders of the GPLv2+'ed part can add an exception (that is to say, an additional permission), as explained in http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs See also http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs Is it allowed to load such library into a GPLv2+ application (technically speaking it's linking again, in runtime)? I think that this also requires an exception granted by the GPLv2+'ed application copyright holders, as above. [...] That said, I haven't spoken to unrar author yet, wanted to know lawyers opinion first. Most of us debian-legal regulars are *not* lawyers. I am *not* a lawyer myself. There *are* a few lawyers that sometimes contribute to debian-legal, but, of course, if you need real legal advice, I recommend that you hire an actual lawyer... I hope this clarifies. -- New location for my website! Update your bookmarks! http://www.inventati.org/frx . Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4 pgpZXuVVsr1bx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Bug#533569: Mixture of Code unter GPL-2+ and UnRAR license compatible?
Hi all, let me shed some light on source files structure: ./common/ -- GPLv2+, shared core across several modules, cannot be relicensed (LGPLv2+ might be an option though). ./unrar/unrar.c -- GPLv2+, may be relicensed if needed. It's a bridge between two APIs. ./unrar/unrar/ -- original unrar sources (there might be few modifications, but I hope to solve them soon, so we can have unmodified unrar sources there). All these sources are statically linked to a single shared object (library), which is being loaded by the master application. Now the question is: is it allowed to statically link object files with different licenses? Is it allowed to load such library into a GPLv2+ application (technically speaking it's linking again, in runtime)? I don't have problem relicensing any sources except of the ./common/ core. The package would need to have two licenses, that's fine with me. I'm trying to retain all copyrights as much as possible (i.e. the unrar copyright is displayed in master application). That said, I haven't spoken to unrar author yet, wanted to know lawyers opinion first. On Sat, 2009-11-28 at 07:50 +0100, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: I found a similar licensing problem in RedHat Bugtracker [1]. ---(Comment #25) [snip] This code cannot go into Fedora as is. All RAR v3.x support would need to be stripped out, before it could be considered. Given that most RAR files are RAR v3, that severely limits the usefulness of this application. In addition, we will need to strip the RAR v3 code out of clamav. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=319831 [2] http://bugs.debian.org/312552 Also see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/Unrar Thanks, -- Tomas Bzatek -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Bug#533569: Mixture of Code unter GPL-2+ and UnRAR license compatible?
[ please cc me, I'm not subscribed to debian-legal ] Hi All Hmm, ... 2. The UnRAR sources may be used in any software to handle RAR archives without limitations free of charge, but cannot be used to re-create the RAR compression algorithm, which is proprietary. Distribution of modified UnRAR sources in separate form or as a part of other software is permitted, provided that it is clearly stated in the documentation and source comments that the code may not be used to develop a RAR (WinRAR) compatible archiver. I found a similar licensing problem in RedHat Bugtracker [1]. ---(Comment #25) I spoke via email to Eugene Roshal about this issue. He was unaware that clamav had used derived code from their implementation in clamav, under the GPL license, and stated that he did not grant them permission to do so. He said that the only way he was willing for such code to be used was with a clause like the following: The unRAR sources cannot be used to re-create the RAR compression algorithm, which is proprietary. Distribution of modified unRAR sources in separate form or as a part of other software is permitted, provided that it is clearly stated in the documentation and source comments that the code may not be used to develop a RAR (WinRAR) compatible archiver. Unfortunately, such a restriction conflicts directly with the GPL, and is a showstopper. This code cannot go into Fedora as is. All RAR v3.x support would need to be stripped out, before it could be considered. Given that most RAR files are RAR v3, that severely limits the usefulness of this application. In addition, we will need to strip the RAR v3 code out of clamav. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=319831 [2] http://bugs.debian.org/312552 Any comments on this? Bests Salvatore signature.asc Description: Digital signature
