Licence question

[Pippijn van Steenhoven]

Hi,

librona is probably going to be distributed under the GNU Affero General
Public License. It will have an exception that should allow APL2 code to
be linked against it. Currently, I have it worded like this at the
beginning of each file:

 You can redistribute this file under the terms of the GNU Affero General
 Public License version 3 or later. As a special exception, you may use
 this file as part of a differently licensed work provided the other
 license does not violate section 6 of the GNU AGPL. See the LICENSE file
 for more information.

The LICENSE file looks like this:

 This work is licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License version 3.

 In addition to the rights and obligations of this licence, you may

   - link against libraries, instantiate templates, expand macros and use
     inline functions from headers in this work in order to produce machine
     readable code (executables) and distribute them under any licence that
     does not violate section 6 of the AGPL. This means that you need to
     provide an option to get the source of a derivative work at all times.
   - use the makefiles to create your own build system.

 Note that you may not distribute any part of rona in source form together
 with incompatibly licenced work.

What do you think?

Pippijn



_______________________________________________
Aldor-l mailing list
Aldor-l@...
http://aldor.org/mailman/listinfo/aldor-l_aldor.org

[Bill Page-7]

Pippijn,

It might not be immediately obvious to everyone reading this list, so
I think it is worthwhile to explain that librona is a separate project
not directly connected with Aldor, but that it is required in order to
compile the modifications you have recently made to Aldor which are
also available at your web site:

http://xinutec.org/~pippijn/en/projects_aldor.xhtml

I have no problem at all with your proposed licensing terms.

Regards,
Bill Page.

On 2008/8/12 you:

>
> librona is probably going to be distributed under the GNU Affero General
> Public License. It will have an exception that should allow APL2 code to
> be linked against it. Currently, I have it worded like this at the
> beginning of each file:
>
>  You can redistribute this file under the terms of the GNU Affero General
>  Public License version 3 or later. As a special exception, you may use
>  this file as part of a differently licensed work provided the other
>  license does not violate section 6 of the GNU AGPL. See the LICENSE file
>  for more information.
>
> The LICENSE file looks like this:
>
>  This work is licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License version 3.
>
>  In addition to the rights and obligations of this licence, you may
>
>   - link against libraries, instantiate templates, expand macros and use
>     inline functions from headers in this work in order to produce machine
>     readable code (executables) and distribute them under any licence that
>     does not violate section 6 of the AGPL. This means that you need to
>     provide an option to get the source of a derivative work at all times.
>   - use the makefiles to create your own build system.
>
>  Note that you may not distribute any part of rona in source form together
>  with incompatibly licenced work.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Pippijn
>

_______________________________________________
Aldor-l mailing list
Aldor-l@...
http://aldor.org/mailman/listinfo/aldor-l_aldor.org

[Christian Aistleitner-2]

Hi Pippijn,

your post is no longer bloomingly fresh. However, it's only now I that I  
get a chance to read it. Therefore I am commenting on old news...

Since the original mail has been out some days ago, let me cite the  
mission statement:

On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:03:15 +0200, <pip88nl@...> wrote:

> librona is probably going to be distributed under the GNU Affero General
> Public License. It will have an exception that should allow APL2 code to
> be linked against it.

Now for the suggested solution:

> Currently, I have it [Preamble for librona to allow APL2]worded like  
> this at the beginning of each file:
>
>  You can redistribute this file under the terms of the GNU Affero General
>  Public License version 3 or later. As a special exception, you may use
>  this file as part of a differently licensed work provided the other
>  license does not violate section 6 of the GNU AGPL. See the LICENSE file
>  for more information.

But section 6 of AGPL v3 says that

   You may convey [...] object code [...] provided that you also convey the  
machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this Licence,  
[...]

 From my understanding, APL2 does not require to make source code available  
upon conveying object code. Therefore, I deem APL2 cannot be "the other  
licence."

But even is the APL2 would require this, it still would not require to  
make the source code available under AGPL v3 (and that's the licence the  
phrase "this Licence" of the AGPL v3 is referring to.). Hence APL2 would  
again be out of the race.

Kind regards,
Christian

_______________________________________________
Aldor-l mailing list
Aldor-l@...
http://aldor.org/mailman/listinfo/aldor-l_aldor.org

[Pippijn van Steenhoven]

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 09:17:17PM +0200, Christian Aistleitner wrote:
> Hi Pippijn,
>
> your post is no longer bloomingly fresh. However, it's only now I that I  
> get a chance to read it. Therefore I am commenting on old news...

Hi Christian,

for some reason I either missed this mail or forgot to answer.

> But section 6 of AGPL v3 says that
>
>   You may convey [...] object code [...] provided that you also convey the  
> machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this Licence,  
> [...]
>
> From my understanding, APL2 does not require to make source code available  
> upon conveying object code. Therefore, I deem APL2 cannot be "the other  
> licence."

APL2 does not require the entire work to be distributed under APL2, so
the resulting licence would be APL2 with an additional clause to comply
with AGPLv3.

> But even is the APL2 would require this, it still would not require to  
> make the source code available under AGPL v3 (and that's the licence the  
> phrase "this Licence" of the AGPL v3 is referring to.). Hence APL2 would  
> again be out of the race.

That is true and I noticed this. Therefore, I have removed access to the
sources until I have enough time and knowledge to work out optimal
licence conditions that do not break IP, APL2 and AGPLv3.

--
Pippijn van Steenhoven


_______________________________________________
Aldor-l mailing list
Aldor-l@...
http://aldor.org/mailman/listinfo/aldor-l_aldor.org