| |
Kekoa Proudfoot wrote:
>
> Markus L. Noga <noga@inrialpes.fr> wrote:
> > Yes, I believe GNU configure is covered by GPL. I already changed legOS
> > licensing to MPL because Kekoa's math routines are MPL. I'm not sure if we
> > may continue to use them if we change yet again.
>
> Read the MPL again. It's not clear to me that you need to MPL all your
> code if you include unmodified source from something that is covered by
> MPL. But if you include MPL'd source, you certainly have to make it clear
> what code is covered by the MPL and what is not. And maybe I don't know
> what I am talking about because I didn't read the MPL closely enough.
I am by no means an license expert, but I just happen to have been
reading about the GPL, and the MPL is pretty similar, though there are,
of course, differences. The doc that I read stated that you can apply
the GPL only to the files that you want to apply it to (if you don't
want to appli it to all of them). If the MPL is similar in this regard,
it agrees with what Kekoa said.
The same doc warned, however, that the default of copyright law (if you
don't apply the GPL, MPL, or similar instrument to a particular file) is
that no rights are extended to somebody who downloads the code. In the
strictest legal sense, I am not legally permitted to compile legOS-0.1.6
since permission had not been formally extended.
Of course, we all know what a great guy Markus is and that he is not
going to prosecute us.
I am not sure of the implications to resulting binaries when several
licenses are in effect. I did not finish reading that document. I
would guess that resulting binaries would be subject to the most
restrictive intersection of the licenses.
> Maybe GPL forbids you from linking to non-GPL'd code? This doesn't seem
> likely, since then how would you e.g. link any GPL'd code to a non-GPL
> libc?
There is a special GPL for libraries. I think they call it the LGPL,
though I'm not positive. What you are saying is slightly different,
though. I don't reckon they'd care what you link their stuff
_against_. The question of rights pertaining to the binaries appears
again, though.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: toolchain
|
| On the subject of licences: I always forget the details, coz they bore me, but as a result of working on Apache, I do know a few things: 1. There is an LGPL that is less restrictive than GPL. 2. GPL licences are not compatible with all other (...) (25 years ago, 24-Mar-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: toolchain
|
| (...) Read the MPL again. It's not clear to me that you need to MPL all your code if you include unmodified source from something that is covered by MPL. But if you include MPL'd source, you certainly have to make it clear what code is covered by (...) (25 years ago, 23-Mar-99, to lugnet.robotics.rcx.legos)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
