Re: [Bitpim-devel] Licensing (again :-)

[Stephen W. <sa...@us...>]

On Thu, 2004-03-04 at 01:11, Roger Binns wrote:

> The problem with the GPL is that it is "freedom or nothing".  Technically
> anything you link in (such as BitPim does with wxWidgets, DSV, libusb,
> Python, pySerial, win32all, cx_Freeze) must also be under the GPL.
> I don't like the idea of linking to other peoples components and then
> effectively relicensing them, although maybe I am misreading the GPL.

I think it OK to combine GPL and non-GPL parts as long as the non-GPL
parts are GPL-Compatible.  (More permissive?)  This:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
lists licenses that the FSF believes to be GPL compatible.  I think a
big part of what makes it GPL compatible is that whoever receives the
software is free to modify it and redistribute it.  But it is not
entirely trivial.  For example, a seemingly minor change in the XFree86
license has apparently made the latest XFree86 incompatible with the
GPL.

A lot of the 3rd party components look to be GPL compatible according to
the gnu.org page.  Python, wxWidgets, Python-DSV, libusb all clearly
are.  Not sure about pySerial since its license file seems to date back
to a time when python licenses were not GPL compatible.  I don't think
the licenses of the installers and freezers are relevant to GPL
compatibility.

> However the GPL does seem to be more attractive every day since
> it is rigidly "freedom or nothing".  That means no loopholes
> or other vagaries.
> 
> Ok, as a last shot, how about the LGPL.  It doesn't appear to "infect"
> other libraries and components that share the same executable.  Section
> 5 of the LGPL does make my head spin though.  Section 6 does bring
> in the "advertising" which is nice.
I'm not sure that the LGPL really fits and the talk of Library could be
confusing in the context of BitPim.

I guess my preference is to either stick with the V2.0 perl license or
decide to use the full GPL after making sure that all the other
components are GPL compatible.  The latter still leaves options for
proprietary software developers that would like to use BitPim in some
way.  They can try to negotiate a separate license with us, or they can
use the "facts" (i.e. sync protocols for various phones) documented by
BitPim in applications that don't use any BitPim code.

				Stephen