On 07 Jan 2004 15:40:50 +0100, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
>
> * Mikhael Goikhman <migo_at_homemail.com> [2004-01-07 10:21]:
>
> > Not only this disallows the script to be included into fvwm in one or
> > another form, but I think this is not legal. Since this script depends
> > on the GPL'd library FVWM::Module, it should be GPL'd as well.
>
> Since it is GPL-compatible it may very well be included into fvwm. The
> module code itself does not contain any code from the fvwm sources but
> uses the library at runtime, I would consider this as something like
> dynamic linking against a library, please see
> http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue38/kidd.html#free-software
> (a quote from RMS)
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfInterpreterIsGPL (last
> paragraph mentions this case) and
> So in my understanding this is legal, please feel free to prove me
> wrong.
Ok, I think I have no problem if the code in the script is under the
new BSDL (I didn't recognize it), and the resulting script executable is
covered by the GNU GPL, as quoted.
However I think it may be considered good if all code that depends on the
GNU GPL'd library is at least dual licensed, making derivatives under GNU
GPL trivial (or interoperability trivial, for this reason). Currently my
understanding is that the BSDL header should be left untouched in the
derived GPL'd work, that is a nonsense.
If my understanding is wrong and the BSDL header (anything under the
copyright notice) may be just replaced with the GNU GPL'd header then
there is no any issue.
Regards,
Mikhael.
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to majordomo_at_fvwm.org.
To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_fvwm.org.
Received on Wed Jan 07 2004 - 13:17:22 GMT