Hi, I am making an application which is actually a combination of different packages. Now the problem is these packages are of diffrent licenses like : GPL, LGPL, MIT, MPL.
Now I am confused in which license my application should be released ? And whether it is at all required to have a license for my application or not?
Regards, Kushal
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 08/05/2006 12:27 AM, Kushal Das cobbled together some glyphs to say: Kushal,
I am making an application which is actually a combination of different packages. Now the problem is these packages are of diffrent licenses like : GPL, LGPL, MIT, MPL. Now I am confused in which license my application should be released ? And whether it is at all required to have a license for my application or not?
It's ok for you to release your _own_ code under any license as long as it's not proprietary or doesn't restrict any freedoms provided by the libs you are linking to. It's ok to make it some thing which is very permissive like MIT, BSD, etc. or something which mandates that modifications are also Free Software, like GPL. You decide what suites your idea the most. Personally I'd prefer the GNU GPL for apps and GNU LGPL for libs.
Regards, BG
- -- Baishampayan Ghose b.ghose@gnu.org The GNU Project http://www.gnu.org/
1024D/86361B74 BB2C E244 15AD 05C5 523A 90E7 4249 3494 8636 1B74
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 12:27:35AM +0530, Kushal Das wrote: ,---- | Hi, | I am making an application which is actually a combination of | different packages. Now the problem is these packages are of | diffrent licenses like : GPL, LGPL, MIT, MPL. | | Now I am confused in which license my application should be released | ? And whether it is at all required to have a license for my | application or not? | | Regards, | Kushal `---- GNU LGPL and MIT (assuming X11 License) are both compatible with the GNU GPL license. But MPL is not. This means you cannot legally combine or link the code.
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. But only the author of MPL'ed code can make this decision.
My recommendation is to adopt GNU GPL and find an alternative for the MPL'ed code or write one yourself. You can also ask the MPL'ed code author to dual-license with GNU GPL.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Anand Babu wrote:
My recommendation is to adopt GNU GPL and find an alternative for the MPL'ed code or write one yourself. You can also ask the MPL'ed code author to dual-license with GNU GPL.
What happen's when the application in question only *installs* binary only packages that are licensed under licenses which are GPL incompatible ?
eg. I create an application/interface that installs two RPMs for two packages A and B. A is GPL compatible if not GPL itself and B is GPL incompatible. How do I license my interface/application or does the license for my application (which in a non strict sense is only an installer) as GPL compatible meet all requirements ?
:Sankarshan
ps: Kushal had called me up last night on this issue and frankly the mix of licenses puzzled me a bit and I suggested that he write in here. If anyone has another person/list he can go to it would surely be appreciated
- --
You see things; and you say 'Why?'; But I dream things that never were; and I say 'Why not?' - George Bernard Shaw
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 12:08:33PM +0530, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay wrote: ,---- | Anand Babu wrote: | > My recommendation is to adopt GNU GPL and find an alternative for | > the MPL'ed code or write one yourself. You can also ask the MPL'ed | > code author to dual-license with GNU GPL. | | What happen's when the application in question only *installs* | binary only packages that are licensed under licenses which are GPL | incompatible ? | | eg. I create an application/interface that installs two RPMs for two | packages A and B. A is GPL compatible if not GPL itself and B is GPL | incompatible. How do I license my interface/application or does the | license for my application (which in a non strict sense is only an | installer) as GPL compatible meet all requirements ? `---- You have to be precise. Saying "Installing" is not sufficient.
GPL incompatible free software license allows you to redistribute but doesn't allow you to link your GPL'ed code to it even in binary form. Because the binary code still runs inside your application context.
So you can re-distribute but not link.
On Tuesday 08 August 2006 04:10, Anand Babu wrote:
On Sat, Aug 05, 2006 at 12:08:33PM +0530, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay wrote: ,----
| Anand Babu wrote: | > My recommendation is to adopt GNU GPL and find an alternative for | > the MPL'ed code or write one yourself. You can also ask the MPL'ed | > code author to dual-license with GNU GPL. | | What happen's when the application in question only *installs* | binary only packages that are licensed under licenses which are GPL | incompatible ? | | eg. I create an application/interface that installs two RPMs for two | packages A and B. A is GPL compatible if not GPL itself and B is GPL | incompatible. How do I license my interface/application or does the | license for my application (which in a non strict sense is only an | installer) as GPL compatible meet all requirements ?
`---- You have to be precise. Saying "Installing" is not sufficient.
GPL incompatible free software license allows you to redistribute but doesn't allow you to link your GPL'ed code to it even in binary form. Because the binary code still runs inside your application context.
So you can re-distribute but not link.
Lets say there is a package named XYZ.rpm which is in MPL. And my application, which is in GPL, is a shell script with the following line:
rpm -ivh XYZ.rpm
Then what ?
Regards, Kushal
Kushal Das wrote:
Lets say there is a package named XYZ.rpm which is in MPL. And my application, which is in GPL, is a shell script with the following line:
rpm -ivh XYZ.rpm
Then what ?
depends on whether XYZ.rpm is supplied by u as part of your app ? depends on whether "XYZ.rpm" string in the line "rpm -ivh XYZ.rpm" came statically or was user supplied in some way?
I can only wonder.
On Tuesday 08 August 2006 13:45, Laxminarayan G Kamath A wrote:
Kushal Das wrote:
Lets say there is a package named XYZ.rpm which is in MPL. And my application, which is in GPL, is a shell script with the following line:
rpm -ivh XYZ.rpm
Then what ?
depends on whether XYZ.rpm is supplied by u as part of your app ? depends on whether "XYZ.rpm" string in the line "rpm -ivh XYZ.rpm" came statically or was user supplied in some way?
My application is only the installer for those packages. But I want to distribute them as a whole. Means with my installer I want to distribute the packages also. That means "rpm -ivh XYZ.rpm" is coming statically. :)
Regards, Kushal
On Tue, Aug 08, 2006 at 04:22:21PM +0530, Kushal Das wrote: ,---- | On Tuesday 08 August 2006 13:45, Laxminarayan G Kamath A wrote: | > Kushal Das wrote: | > >Lets say there is a package named XYZ.rpm which is in MPL. And my | > >application, which is in GPL, is a shell script with the | > >following line: | > > | > >rpm -ivh XYZ.rpm | > > | > >Then what ? | > | > depends on whether XYZ.rpm is supplied by u as part of your app ? | > depends on whether "XYZ.rpm" string in the line "rpm -ivh XYZ.rpm" | > came statically or was user supplied in some way? | > | | My application is only the installer for those packages. But I want | to distribute them as a whole. Means with my installer I want to | distribute the packages also. | That means "rpm -ivh XYZ.rpm" is coming statically. :) `----
XYZ program and your installer can be considered as two separate packages. This means your installer code can be released under GPL'ed.
Here is a nice resource you can refer to. Read answers around this link. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
-
Anand Babu -
Baishampayan Ghose -
Kushal Das -
Laxminarayan G Kamath A -
Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay