Re: meaning of Php.XPath license?
Brought to you by:
bs_php,
nigelswinson
Menu
▾
▴
Re: meaning of Php.XPath license?
|
From: Francis F. <fra...@vi...> - 2002-06-28 14:31:35
|
As read on the gnu.org site and the mozilla.org site, MPL is incompatible with LGPL. MOzilla use a triple license sheme MPL/GPL/LGPL so you can use any of those license, so if you use code that is GPL, you can use GPL license and on ... Elmar Hinz wrote: > 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 >>> >> >> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Caffeinated soap. No kidding. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Phpxpath-users mailing list > Php...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/phpxpath-users > -- Francis Fillion, BAA SI Broadcasting live from his linux box. And the maintainer of http://www.windplanet.com |
