[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Gcl-devel] Re: 2.6.8 licensing

From: Donald Winiecki
Subject: [Gcl-devel] Re: 2.6.8 licensing
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2010 17:45:03 -0600

Camm and all,

It is possible that your correspondent is referring to section 6 of
GPL3 (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.html), text of which
is included below (see 6.a.) (it appears that all except section 3 of
GCL3 is telegraphed through LGPL3 -- see section 1 of LGPL3
[http://www.opensource.org/licenses/lgpl-3.0.html]).  However, this
seems to apply only in the case of compiled versions of GCL, such as
the Win32 programs (ANSI and CLTL1) downloadable from the GCL website.

I don't find any other things in either LGPL3 or GCL3 that would make
this an issue for GCL -- but I'll hasten to add that I didn't go
through both licenses with a fine toothed comb.

6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.

You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of
sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable
Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these

    * a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
(including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the
Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily
used for software interchange.
    * b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
(including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written
offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you
offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give
anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the
Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is
covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used
for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable
cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access
to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
    * c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of
the written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This
alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and only
if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord with
subsection 6b.
    * d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated
place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the
Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no
further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the
Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy
the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be
on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports
equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions
next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source.
Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain
obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to
satisfy these requirements.
    * e) Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission,
provided you inform other peers where the object code and
Corresponding Source of the work are being offered to the general
public at no charge under subsection 6d.



On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:32 PM, Camm Maguire <address@hidden> wrote:
> Greetings!  I've received a thoughtful reply claiming that the LGPLv3
> is more onerous than v2 in that it obligates all distributors to
> provide physical media, and not simply provide electronic
> distribution.  I cannot find this text -- anyone know for sure?
> Take care,
> Donald Winiecki <address@hidden> writes:
>> Given recent information posted by Camm, I don't see a special reason
>> to not move to LGPLv3, as that wouldn't encroach on users of
>> Axiom-family tools.
>> But that's just me and if there are good reasons to not move this way,
>> perhaps not assigning copyright to FSF would also be an appropriate
>> move to keep that organization from doing things the principals of GCL
>> would rather not be done.
>> And it's good to see that I can still say somewhat problematic things
>> without really trying -- aggressive or not...  !^0
>> _don
>> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Camm Maguire <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> Greetings!
>>> Gabriel Dos Reis <address@hidden> writes:
>>>> Donald Winiecki <address@hidden> writes:
>>>> | A change to the most recent licenses will make things consistent with
>>>> | FSF's current way of thinking about open source, though more
>>>> | aggressive developers seem to think it's restrictive.  Given the
>>>> | typical users and usual applications of GCL, this may not be an issue.
>>>> It is my opinion that GPLv3 goes a bit too far -- but I would dispute
>>>> the label "aggressive developer" :-)
>>>> | But I'm not sure -- if GCL is licensed under GPL3, does that mean that
>>>> | anything built with or under it will also have to be licensed under
>>>> | GPL3?  (I guess that's why Camm is querying the Axiom list.)
>>>> Indeed.  That does have some implication for systems like the AXIOM family.
>>>> If I understand correctly, it will be a move from LGPL to GPLv3?
>>> Please excuse my ambiguous wording.  The proposal is to license GCL
>>> under LGPLv3 (currently LGPLv2), and the documentation under the
>>> FDLv1.3.  The LGPL 'library' license is non-viral for apps such as
>>> axiom.
>>>> | And copyrighting GCL under the FSF seems like a reasonable idea, but
>>>> | without Camm, GCL would be fairly well static, I think.
>>>> well those are separate issues, I would think.  Having FSF owns
>>>> copyright relieves from some legal paperwork and burdens.  That is
>>>> largely orthogonal to who actually does the development work.
>>> Yes, this is orthogonal, and not too pressing.  But I do wonder if the
>>> copyright holder has final say over issues such as licensing, which
>>> might not be the case now.
>>> Take care,
>>>> -- Gaby
>>> --
>>> Camm Maguire                                       address@hidden
>>> ==========================================================================
>>> "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah
> --
> Camm Maguire                                       address@hidden
> ==========================================================================
> "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens."  --  Baha'u'llah

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]