[Savannah-register-public] Re: [gnu.org #220951] LGPL-compatibility of Condor and LAM-MPI

[Sylvain Beucler via RT]

On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 02:45:58PM -0500, Dave Turner via RT wrote:
> > address@hidden - Wed Feb 09 13:43:06 2005]:
> > 
> > On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 08:09:27PM -0500, Dave Turner via RT wrote:
> > > > address@hidden - Sat Feb 05 03:53:03 2005]:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Feb 03, 2005 at 07:54:46PM -0500, Dave Turner via RT
> > wrote:
> > > > > > address@hidden - Thu Feb 03 17:53:44 2005]:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am reviewing the 'paradiseo' project at Savannah. This
> > software
> > > > > > relies among others on Condor and LAM-MPI.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The 'paradiseo' project is released under the GNU *L*GPL. I
> > would like
> > > > > > to know if the dependencies licenses are compatible with the
> > LGPL.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The license of Condor can be found here:
> > > > > > http://www.cs.wisc.edu/condor/downloads/v6.7.license.html
> > > > > > I am wondering about sections 3 and 4.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The license of LAM-MPI is attached or can be found in:
> > > > > > http://www.lam-mpi.org/download/files/lam-7.1.1.tar.bz2
> > > > > > That one looks like a PHP license.
> > > > >
> > > > > They can be combined with LGPL works, but the work as a whole
> > can't be
> > > > > licensed under the LGPL, and can't be combined with GPL works.
> > > >
> > > > Do you see a way to license the 'paradiseo' code under a GNU
> > > > GPL-compatible license, while allowing it to use Condor and LAM-
> > MPI?
> > > >
> > > > Relicensing 'paradiseo' under the Expat license?
> > >
> > > The problem isn't the license of paradiseo.  It's the license of
> > Condor
> > > and LAM-MPI.  So, no change in the license of paradiseo will help.
> > 
> > Do you mean there is no legal way for paradiseo to use Condor and
> > LAM-MPI?
> 
> No, I mean that there is no way to do so such that the result is
> compatible with the GPL.  
> > Here's my constraints:
> > - code hosted at Savannah has to be GNU GPL-compatible
> > - dependencies have to be free software (although they can be GNU
> >   GPL-incompatible)
> > 
> > Maybe this needs to be precised (should we actually require
> > GPL-compatibility of dependencies?).
> > 
> > I though that if the code were released under a simple non-copyleft
> > license such as Expat's, the linking with Condor&LAM-MPI could legally
> > be done, while the application code stricto sensu would be GNU
> > GPL-compatible and eligible for Savannah hosting (although not usable
> > in a GNU GPL-licensed program without getting rid of the GNU
> > GPL-incompatible dependencies first).
> 
> This is true in the LGPL case too.  

Thanks for the information :)

I'll send a mail to RMS to precise whether we accept this indirect GNU
GPL incompatibility at Savannah.

-- 
Sylvain