Diego Nicola Barbato
2018-11-03 20:52:19 UTC
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 Infernoâs source tree [5] claims that
while âdifferent portionsâ of the code are âsubject to different licence
termsâ the GPLv2+ âgoverns the collectionâ and that the other licenses
âare all compatible with the GPLv2â. Unfortunately some portions of the
code are subject to the âLucent Public License 1.02â (LPL), which is
incompatible with the GPL according to this [6] list. This obviously
contradicts the compatibility claim in NOTICE and, since LPL code
(âlibmpâ and âlibsecâ) is combined with GPL code when building âemuâ
(i.e âhosted Infernoâ), it looks like it could be a GPL violation.
There is some more LPL code in the âosâ directory, which is not used for
building âemuâ, and in the âapplâ and âmoduleâ 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
âsolutionâ 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 âsolutionâ fix this?
Is it still possible to provide the âcollectionâ 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?
Greetings
Diego
[1]: https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2018-11/msg00000.html
[2]: http://inferno-os.org
[3]: https://gnu.org/software/guix
[4]:
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 Infernoâs source tree [5] claims that
while âdifferent portionsâ of the code are âsubject to different licence
termsâ the GPLv2+ âgoverns the collectionâ and that the other licenses
âare all compatible with the GPLv2â. Unfortunately some portions of the
code are subject to the âLucent Public License 1.02â (LPL), which is
incompatible with the GPL according to this [6] list. This obviously
contradicts the compatibility claim in NOTICE and, since LPL code
(âlibmpâ and âlibsecâ) is combined with GPL code when building âemuâ
(i.e âhosted Infernoâ), it looks like it could be a GPL violation.
There is some more LPL code in the âosâ directory, which is not used for
building âemuâ, and in the âapplâ and âmoduleâ 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
âsolutionâ 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 âsolutionâ fix this?
Is it still possible to provide the âcollectionâ 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?
Greetings
Diego
[1]: https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2018-11/msg00000.html
[2]: http://inferno-os.org
[3]: https://gnu.org/software/guix
[4]: