[Top][All Lists]

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

[GNU-linux-libre] Adding Inferno to GNU Guix: licensing issues.

From: Diego Nicola Barbato
Subject: [GNU-linux-libre] Adding Inferno to GNU Guix: licensing issues.
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2018 21:52:19 +0100
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux)

Hello folks,

As I wrote in this [1] thread I have some questions concerning possible
licensing issues, which arose while determining the FSDG compatibility
of Inferno [2], which I am trying to package for GNU Guix [3].

The NOTICE [4] in the root of Inferno’s source tree [5] claims that
while “different portions” of the code are “subject to different licence
terms” the GPLv2+ “governs the collection” and that the other licenses
“are all compatible with the GPLv2”.  Unfortunately some portions of the
code are subject to the ‘Lucent Public License 1.02’ (LPL), which is
incompatible with the GPL according to this [6] list.  This obviously
contradicts the compatibility claim in NOTICE and, since LPL code
(‘libmp’ and ‘libsec’) is combined with GPL code when building ‘emu’
(i.e ‘hosted Inferno’), it looks like it could be a GPL violation.
There is some more LPL code in the ‘os’ directory, which is not used for
building ‘emu’, and in the ‘appl’ and ‘module’ directories, which
contain Limbo code, which is run on Inferno but not used to build it.

I have considered suggesting that the compatibility claim be removed and
an exception [7] be added in a bug report to upstream.  But since I am a
random person who stumbled across some FAQ on the internet I want to
make sure that I have analysed the situation correctly and that my
“solution” is adequate before I do that.

Does the described situation really constitute a GPL violation (or are
the authors allowed to do this, as they are the copyright holders of all
the code)?
Would the aforementioned “solution” fix this?
Is it still possible to provide the “collection” under the GPLv2+?
Can Inferno be added to a FSDG distro in its current state or do the
licensing issues have to be resolved before this can be considered?




Attachment: NOTICE
Description: NOTICE


reply via email to

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