#2 Use of Runtime GPL?

open
portability (2)
5
2007-05-17
2007-05-14
Markus Elfring
No

Would you like to consider the "GNU General Public License with runtime exception" (RGPL)?
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/17_intro/license.html

How do you think about the details from the discussion "(L)GPL and C++ templates issue"?
http://groups.google.de/groups?threadm=4174046c%241_2%40news.bluewin.ch

Discussion

  • Logged In: YES
    user_id=623409
    Originator: NO

    I have consulted with Todd Veldhuizen, the original author of Blitz++, and we both agree that allowing distribution of blitz under the GPL with runtime exception would make sense. Since the blitz library consists almost entirely of template code, any distributed program that was compiled using blitz would essentially be forced to include a source code distribution to allow for modifications and improvements of blitz under the original GPL or Lesser GPL. The runtime exception to the GPL appears to adequately address this concern. Blitz is already available under a separate BSD-like license called the Blitz Artistic License. I will endeavor to update all licensing references in the next blitz maintenance release from the original GPL to version 2 with the runtime exception.

     
    • assigned_to: nobody --> julianc
     
  • Logged In: YES
    user_id=623409
    Originator: NO

    Yes, we will now be releasing Blitz++ under version 2 of the LGPL. In addition, a request was made by SciPy developers to package Blitz++ with SciPy under a BSD license (to avoid requirements that GPL and LGPL place on a package that uses another). Todd Veldhuizen, the original author and copyright holder for Blitz++, agreed to this, so we will allow people to choose between use of the LGPL, the BSD license, or the original Blitz++ artistic license. The licensing documents have been updated within the cvs development version of blitz and will be included in the next maintenance release. We are still working on completion of some 64-bit compatibility issues, but I hope to produce that next release in the next couple of weeks.

     
  • Markus Elfring
    Markus Elfring
    2008-04-26

    Logged In: YES
    user_id=572001
    Originator: YES

    I am confused if I understand your reply correctly. I would prefer a single licence that will fit all purposes.

    How do you think about a solution from a well-known header-only class template library?
    http://synesis.com.au/software/stlsoft/

     
  • Logged In: YES
    user_id=623409
    Originator: NO

    After looking at the STLSoft website, it is not clear to me how they have resolved this issue. The website merely states that their software is released under a "modified BSD license". How do they address GPL or LGPL? The difficulty as I see it is that the GPL and LGPL licenses specifically state that the license documents are not to be modified in any way. So I do not think you can have a single license that covers (L)GPL as well as alternate licensing terms. That is why Blitz was originally released with the option of using the GPL or the Blitz "artistic license". AFAIK, these cannot be unified into a single license because the (L)GPL must be used in its original form. But I am not a lawyer or an expert on software licensing, so I am open to other ideas on this.