nanogui: License issues
Subject:
Re: License issues
From:
Alex Holden ####@####.####
Date:
11 Aug 2000 11:19:13 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.04.10008111151570.569-100000@hyperspace.linuxhacker.org>
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Jakov af Wallby wrote:
> Yes, it's correct. devarc.c has to reimplemented or relicensed by the author.
I already asked Greg about that statement, and he assured me that in fact
the routines in devarc.c had been relicensed, but that he didn't want to
change the copyright statement in the file (?). What we need to do in
order to make the situation clear and fulfil the terms of the MPL is to
put the MPL copyright statement on every source file (apart from those
which are public domain, and they should also have a clear statement as
such). If there is in fact any GPLed code for which the authors haven't
given consent for it to be relicensed under the MPL, it needs to be fixed
as soon as possible as it puts the whole project in a state of "license
limbo" which we definitely want to avoid.
> > seem there is a licensing problem with using Microwindows in a closed
> > application. Also, wouldn't that mean that the entire Microwindows project
> > would have to be placed under the GPL?
> That I don't know. Is MPL compatible with GPL?
The problem is that if any part of the code is GPLed, all of it must be.
Which means that if any part of Microwindows was GPLed and you distributed
a proprietory application which was linked into Microwindows, you would be
forced to either relicense your application under the GPL or cease
distributing it. The MPL doesn't impose any such restrictions, which is
why we chose it.
--
--------------- Linux- the choice of a GNU generation. --------------
: Alex Holden (M1CJD)- Caver, Programmer, Land Rover nut, Radio Ham :
-------------------- http://www.linuxhacker.org/ --------------------
