Guideline to linking in a multilicense situation
Yaakov Nemoy
loupgaroublond at gmail.com
Sat May 31 08:53:27 UTC 2008
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-05-30 at 17:20 +0200, Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
>> Hi List,
>>
>> My mentor would like to use a library for part of his GSoC work that
>> is licensed partially under the BSD license and partially under the
>> Apache License. The library is PlotKit and can be found here:
>>
>> http://www.liquidx.net/plotkit/
>>
>> As far as bundeling the library, we can always encourage him to create
>> a separate package for Fedora, so that we can ship Smolt as a GPL2
>> only package with a dependency. In terms of GSoC related things, it's
>> one more way to encourage him to join the community, of course. My
>> only question is though, are we allowed to link to this library? I'm
>> afraid I don't quite understand the nuances of a mixed license
>> environment. Or would we need to fork the library to match licenses?
>
> Off the cuff (I've not looked at plotkit, or what you want to link it
> to)...
>
> If plotkit is under both the BSD and the ASL 2.0 (yes, it does matter
> what version of the Apache license it uses), any linking would need to
> meet the terms of both licenses. ASL 2.0 is GPLv2 incompatible, but
> GPLv3 compatible. If Smolt would depend on PlotKit, this would be
> problematic (unless Smolt is GPLv2+, in which case, the complete work
> would likely be interpreted as GPLv3).
>
> Alternately, Smolt could add an exception permitting linking to code
> under the Apache 2.0 license, something like:
>
> In addition, as a special exception, [the copyright holder] gives
> permission to link the code of its release of Smolt with the
> "PlotKit" library (or with modified versions of it that use the same
> license as the "PlotKit" library), and distribute the linked
> executables. You must obey the GNU General Public License in all
> respects for all of the code used other than "PlotKit". If you modify
> this file, you may extend this exception to your version of the file,
> but you are not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so,
> delete this exception statement from your version.
>
> You'd need to get permission of the copyright holder to do this, which I
> suspect is Red Hat, Inc. If you want to go down this path, email Richard
> Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com> directly and CC me.
Luckily, the copyright holder is Mike McGrath. I can take it up with
him. An exception seems like a good idea to me though.
Thanks for the fast reply.
-Yaakov
More information about the fedora-advisory-board
mailing list