Siebrand Mazeland wrote: > Occasionally I visit Ohloh.net to satisfy my stats addiction. > > One of the things Ohloh analyses in the source code is license > information[1]. On the Ohloh MediaWiki page[2] an analysis summary is > displayed. It contains the following warnings (number of files added by me > from [1]): > > # Mozilla Public License 1.0 may conflict with GPL (253 files) > # PHP License may conflict with GPL (7 files) > # Apache Software License may conflict with GPL (1 file) > # Artistic License may conflict with GPL (7 files) > # Common Development and Distribution License may conflict with GPL (1 file) > # Apache License 2.0 may conflict with GPL (7 files) > > I am wondering if any of these warnings can really point out a licensing > issue. If they do, I think we need to persue this, and get it sorted out. > > Anyone who can shed some light on this?
The GPL restriction on linking with non-GPL code is irrelevant for a non-compiled language, when all we're distributing is the source code. I could find nothing in the GPL that contradicts this interpretation. Even for mixed-license projects written in C, it's legal to distribute the source code, just not the compiled binaries. -- Tim Starling _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
