OpenEuphoria

Re: Open Euphoria Licence

• Posted by D. Newhall <derek_newhall at yahoo.com> Sep 20, 2006
• 736 views

Derek Parnell wrote:
> 
> There is an unresolved issue with GPL. It has to do with dynamically
> linking/including
> code in mixed licencing scenarios.

Ahh yes, the ambiguities of the usage of "combined work" in the GPL...


> Assuming that RDS goes for a GPL for Euphoria...
> 
> ** does a non-GPL program that 'include's a Euphoria library have to also
> change
> to a GPL licence?

Personally, I'd argue that since it is not well-defined in the current GPL that
if sued by the FSF or someone else it would be possible to argue that the FSF's
conception of "combined work" is invalid since it is not specifically defined as
such. Granted, I'm not a lawyer (although I am on a pre-law track).


> ** can a GPL program, such as RDS's own code, 'include' a non-GPL file?

This is easier to answer. It depends on the license of the original code. Code
under the X11, 3-clause BSD, an equally loose license, or public domain can be
used in GPLed code.


> The Free Software Foundation (who invented GPL) believe that any non-GPL
> program
> that uses, or is used by, a GPL element must change to be become GPL too,
> otherwise
> they are not allowed to use, or be used by, the GPL element.
> 
> Other experts disagree with this position. Some believe that using a GPL
> element
> is not the same as modifying or translating the GPL element as the GPL element
> itself is not changed in any manner.
 
That explanation is completely correct as far as I can tell. 


> As I say, this is unresolved and may be clarified when the GPL v3 is released
> later this year. However, it may be better to adopt dual licences or a BSD
> type
> of licence. The issue is whether RDS has problems with people taking their
> code,
> modifying it and then not letting people access to their modifications when
> it is distributed. 

Yep, this is the essential issue. Can non-"free" work be allowed and/or to what
degree? There are other open source licenses as well that allow more freedom
and/or control than the GPL.
Another option is to create a new license for Euphoria.

> In all cases though, 
> ** copyright is still with the actual author of the code, unless explicitly
> transfered to a new owner.
> ** the licence type does not prohibit making a profit from any modification.

Again, correct.