[I think you probably meant desktop-devel-list instead of gnome-devel list; am cc'ing d-d-l.]
On 4/11/07, Magnus Therning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (I'm not entirely sure where to send this so pardon the cross-posting.) > > I'm looking into adding support for Simpy[1] to epilicious (an extension > to Epiphany, part of epiphany-extensions since 2.18). There is a Python > module that makes it easy to deal with Simpy, which is great. However > that module is licensed under Apache License version 2 and [2] says that > license doesn't play nice with GPL2. Your [2] is correct; GPL2 and Apache do not play nicely together. For what it is worth, I have noted to the FSF/SFLC today that we are seeing an increased interest in linking Apache licensed code into GNOME code, and that GNOME would be very appreciative if Apache and GPLv3 were interoperable. The responses I got from the various lawyers involved was positive, so it is possible that this may happen. > What are my options in this case? > > Is dual-licensing a possibility (given that I can convince the author > of course)? Absolutely, if you can convince them to do it. This would almost certainly be the best route to take. > Would there be a problem at all from a GNOME POV to simply include the > Python module in question? (It would make it into GNOME SVN at some > point.) Historically GNOME doesn't really care what license you use to put things in SVN, but we have typically required GPL/LGPL for things which are in project releases. Additionally, I'd hope we never put anything in the release with a conflicting license problem. > Writing a small Python module tailored for epilicious needs is of course > always an option, but I'd like to avoid that if possible ;-) Of course. But realize that it is likely a better option than flaunting the licenses. :) Before someone else mentions it, I'm not sure how Ephy's extensions work; it isn't completely impossible that some combination of liberal reading of the GPL + specific behavior of the extensions means that the extension + plugin is not a covered work and hence the conflict doesn't matter. (This is similar to how Ubuntu distributes proprietary kernel modules, even though the kernel is GPL v2.) I would not recommend following this route, though; down that route lies pain. HTH- Luis _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list