Re: meaning of Php.XPath license?
Brought to you by:
bs_php,
nigelswinson
Menu
▾
▴
Re: meaning of Php.XPath license?
|
From: <elm...@t-...> - 2002-06-28 14:05:24
|
Hi all, lets a read the thoughts of another non-lawyer with a bad english: I am leading the COOL project on SF. COOL is a library base for web applications. The license of COOL itself is the Library General Public License(LGPL). We would like to link to phpXPATH, the last stabel version. A public test of my current development state is running under http://cool.sourceforge.net/alpha phpXpath is used to create and read XML language files. You can download your mylanguage.xml result, too. ################################################ I try to bring GPL, LGPL and MPL to the point first. ################################################ 1.) Linking to a GPL library means that your code must become also GPL. It is infectious. 2.) Linking to a LGPL library means that your code keeps private while LGPL keeps LGPL. 3.) Building on MPL means that all the changed Code can go to private. ################################################ The question for COOL is now: Can LGPL link to a MPL library? I think MPL is the weakest of all. Therefore it should be no problem from the position of MPL. It could be a problem for LGPL. As a am not a layer I can only look, what other people do in this situation. On http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/ I find the following sentences. "At the moment, parts of the source are available under either the Netscape Public License (NPL) or the Mozilla Public License (MPL), often in combination with either the GNU General Public License (GPL) or the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), or both." Therefore I think that LGPL is compatible with MPL or mozilla.org is violating LGPL. For COOL project it certainly would be best, to have phpXPath also under LGPL. If MPL and LGPL would really be incompatible, as Francis Fillion wrote, we certainly can't use phpXPath and have to look for another solution. Regards Elmar Francis Fillion wrote: > ################resume############ > 1)I'm not a lawyer, by reading this you can not in anyway sue me for > any reason that caused you or other's any kind of prejudice > > 2)NO, LGPL is not compatible with MPL > > 3) Modification of Php.XPath can be kept private > > 4) We sould maybe re-licence Php.XPath > > If you want to understand all of it, read on my bad english > > ################resume############ > > > Well, I didn't read the license completly, well I did 1 or 2 year's > ago, but if I look in my book: Open SOurces VOices from the Open > SOurce Revolution. You can get see the book online at > http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/toc.html > > and get the page that I talk at > http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/perens.html > > just go down until you get the table comparing all license. > > I can see that if Php.XPath is MPL, it can be mixed with closed source > (non-free software) and a bad thing is that modification can be made > and kept by who did it. So if I take Php.XPath I can make some > modification and keep it for me, it can be keep private. The MPL was > made by Netscape for the Mozilla project, so that Netscape can take > the Mozilla browser made some modification to it, to leverage the > browser and to redistribute it without giving the source back to > Mozilla. ( Mozilla will be relicensed as MPL and GPL, with both of them ) > > > By loking at the mozilla.org site and at the gnu.org site I found that: > > The Mozilla Public License (MPL). > This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft; > unlike the X11 license, it has some complex restrictions that make it > incompatible with the GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL > and a module covered by the MPL cannot legally be linked together. We > urge you not to use the MPL for this reason. > > However, MPL 1.1 has a provision (section 13) that allows a > program (or parts of it) to offer a choice of another license as well. > If part of a program allows the GNU GPL as an alternate choice, or any > other GPL-compatible license as an alternate choice, that part of the > program has a GPL-compatible license. > > > LGPL is based on GPL, so it is not compatible as read on Mozilla.org: > > After the NPL and MPL were created, the Free Software Foundation > stated that the NPL and MPL were "incompatible" with the GPL. > "Incompatibility" in this context means that (in the opinion of the > FSF) developers who combined code licensed under the NPL (or MPL) with > code licensed under the GPL and distributed the resulting work could > not do such distribution without violating the terms of the GPL. Given > that the LGPL contains similar language to the GPL, if the MPL were in > fact incompatible in this way with the GPL, it would arguably be > incompatible with the LGPL as well. > > > If it is money, well anyone can take Php.XPath and make money from it, > it will not be the ethics way to do it, but it can be done. > > As of source of not, the only way to compile PHP is to have the Zend > compiler, which is really costly, so if you don't compile it, they > will get the source. > > I'm not a lawyer, so my opinion is one of an ordinary user ... > > > By the way Nigel, if you want to be sure that no one get the software > and keep the change they made, you should relicence the software to > somethings else. > > I hope it help. > > Nigel Swinson wrote: > >>> Dear Nigel, >>> >>> I have downloaded and am studying version 3.0 for use in my >>> application. >>> I looked at the Mozilla Public License but cannot make any common sense >>> of it. >>> Can you help me? The legalese is incomprehensible to me. Even if you >>> think you understand something like that, you have no idea what a >>> judge's interpretation might be anyway.... >>> >>> What I would like to know is: if I use Php.XPath as part of a larger >>> application that I am writing, am I free to distribute or sell my >>> application with or without including Php.XPath? >> >> >> >> I am equally uninspired by legal issues, to the point that I cant be >> bothered researching this for you and certainly beyond the point where I >> would think of taking you to court if you "get it wrong". :o) >> >> Perhaps someone else on the development team, or someone else on the >> mail >> list can help out though? >> >> My gut feeling is that yes you can sell Php.XPath, but you must >> distribute >> the source with it, along with copyleft statement. How you sell a php >> product without distributing the source I'll never know, but the >> copyright >> statement must stay. >> >> Nigel >> >> =========================== >> For the most recent version of Php.XPath, and an archive of this list >> visit: >> http://www.sourceforge.net/projects/phpxpath >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------- >> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek >> Bringing you mounds of caffeinated joy. >> http://thinkgeek.com/sf >> _______________________________________________ >> Phpxpath-users mailing list >> Php...@li... >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/phpxpath-users >> > > |
