FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Advisory Board

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-30-2008, 03:32 PM
"Tom "spot" Callaway"
 
Default Guideline to linking in a multilicense situation

On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 17:20 +0200, Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
> Hi List,
>
> My mentor would like to use a library for part of his GSoC work that
> is licensed partially under the BSD license and partially under the
> Apache License. The library is PlotKit and can be found here:
>
> http://www.liquidx.net/plotkit/
>
> As far as bundeling the library, we can always encourage him to create
> a separate package for Fedora, so that we can ship Smolt as a GPL2
> only package with a dependency. In terms of GSoC related things, it's
> one more way to encourage him to join the community, of course. My
> only question is though, are we allowed to link to this library? I'm
> afraid I don't quite understand the nuances of a mixed license
> environment. Or would we need to fork the library to match licenses?

Off the cuff (I've not looked at plotkit, or what you want to link it
to)...

If plotkit is under both the BSD and the ASL 2.0 (yes, it does matter
what version of the Apache license it uses), any linking would need to
meet the terms of both licenses. ASL 2.0 is GPLv2 incompatible, but
GPLv3 compatible. If Smolt would depend on PlotKit, this would be
problematic (unless Smolt is GPLv2+, in which case, the complete work
would likely be interpreted as GPLv3).

Alternately, Smolt could add an exception permitting linking to code
under the Apache 2.0 license, something like:

In addition, as a special exception, [the copyright holder] gives
permission to link the code of its release of Smolt with the
"PlotKit" library (or with modified versions of it that use the same
license as the "PlotKit" library), and distribute the linked
executables. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all
respects for all of the code used other than "PlotKit". If you modify
this file, you may extend this exception to your version of the file,
but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so,
delete this exception statement from your version.

You'd need to get permission of the copyright holder to do this, which I
suspect is Red Hat, Inc. If you want to go down this path, email Richard
Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com> directly and CC me.

~spot

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 05-31-2008, 08:53 AM
"Yaakov Nemoy"
 
Default Guideline to linking in a multilicense situation

On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 17:20 +0200, Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
>> Hi List,
>>
>> My mentor would like to use a library for part of his GSoC work that
>> is licensed partially under the BSD license and partially under the
>> Apache License. The library is PlotKit and can be found here:
>>
>> http://www.liquidx.net/plotkit/
>>
>> As far as bundeling the library, we can always encourage him to create
>> a separate package for Fedora, so that we can ship Smolt as a GPL2
>> only package with a dependency. In terms of GSoC related things, it's
>> one more way to encourage him to join the community, of course. My
>> only question is though, are we allowed to link to this library? I'm
>> afraid I don't quite understand the nuances of a mixed license
>> environment. Or would we need to fork the library to match licenses?
>
> Off the cuff (I've not looked at plotkit, or what you want to link it
> to)...
>
> If plotkit is under both the BSD and the ASL 2.0 (yes, it does matter
> what version of the Apache license it uses), any linking would need to
> meet the terms of both licenses. ASL 2.0 is GPLv2 incompatible, but
> GPLv3 compatible. If Smolt would depend on PlotKit, this would be
> problematic (unless Smolt is GPLv2+, in which case, the complete work
> would likely be interpreted as GPLv3).
>
> Alternately, Smolt could add an exception permitting linking to code
> under the Apache 2.0 license, something like:
>
> In addition, as a special exception, [the copyright holder] gives
> permission to link the code of its release of Smolt with the
> "PlotKit" library (or with modified versions of it that use the same
> license as the "PlotKit" library), and distribute the linked
> executables. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all
> respects for all of the code used other than "PlotKit". If you modify
> this file, you may extend this exception to your version of the file,
> but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so,
> delete this exception statement from your version.
>
> You'd need to get permission of the copyright holder to do this, which I
> suspect is Red Hat, Inc. If you want to go down this path, email Richard
> Fontana <rfontana@redhat.com> directly and CC me.

Luckily, the copyright holder is Mike McGrath. I can take it up with
him. An exception seems like a good idea to me though.

Thanks for the fast reply.

-Yaakov

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 05-31-2008, 03:37 PM
seth vidal
 
Default Guideline to linking in a multilicense situation

On Sat, 2008-05-31 at 10:53 +0200, Yaakov Nemoy wrote:

> Luckily, the copyright holder is Mike McGrath. I can take it up with
> him. An exception seems like a good idea to me though.
>

You sure it's Mike? If he started work on that while working for red hat
I think it's (c) Red Hat, Inc

I might be wrong, though.
-sv


_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 05-31-2008, 08:13 PM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default Guideline to linking in a multilicense situation

seth vidal wrote:

On Sat, 2008-05-31 at 10:53 +0200, Yaakov Nemoy wrote:


Luckily, the copyright holder is Mike McGrath. I can take it up with
him. An exception seems like a good idea to me though.



You sure it's Mike? If he started work on that while working for red hat
I think it's (c) Red Hat, Inc

He started work on it before working for Red Hat. I don't know what the
Copyright is for changes introduced after someone starts working for Red
Hat, though.


-Toshio

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 
Old 06-01-2008, 03:14 AM
Mike McGrath
 
Default Guideline to linking in a multilicense situation

On Sat, 31 May 2008, seth vidal wrote:

> On Sat, 2008-05-31 at 10:53 +0200, Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
>
> > Luckily, the copyright holder is Mike McGrath. I can take it up with
> > him. An exception seems like a good idea to me though.
> >
>
> You sure it's Mike? If he started work on that while working for red hat
> I think it's (c) Red Hat, Inc
>
> I might be wrong, though.

It was on my invention disclosure list that I gave to HR

-Mike

_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:21 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org