Re: Yikes! License problem with SE library classes.

On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 22:49 +0200, Philippe Ribet wrote:

> Could you explain more, please. Why do you need to distribute the 
> SmartEiffel library for "Amber for Parrort" to work?

I would like to distribute the C-code generated by the SmartEiffel
"no-split" option. That C-code is a derived work which includes both
my source code (GPL'd) and the SmartEiffel library code.
Therefore, I cannot distribute it unless the whole package
can be distributed according to the terms of the GPL.
That's the "viral" nature of the GPL at work (GPL paragraph 2b).

> Couldn't your work be distributed under GPL and depends on SmartEiffel 
> compiler?

If my users were prepared to install SmartEiffel, I could do that. The
average parrot user has no interest (yet) in installing an Eiffel
compiler. But they usually have a C compiler.

> Why do you think the notification of the changes is not GPL-compatible?

The GPL does not allow any additional conditions to be added, so
licenses that add conditions (that are over and above what is already
required by the GPL) are automatically not GPL-compatible.

For example, on the FSF's "License List" page
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html
the "License of xinetd" is listed as "not GPL compatible". It is a
permissive license, except that it requires changes to be indicated in a
specific way.

The GPL (section 2a) requires you to add your name and date if you
change a file. But it doesn't require you to indicate what the changes
are. And so if a "combined work" is distributed under the GPL, it would
not comply with the terms of the SmartEiffel license.

> Why do you want those files to be GPL-compatible? Just distribute them 
> with their licence because it's allowed to do so...

But then I can't distribute the part that I want to: the generated
C-code that is derived from a combination of GPL'd Eiffel source and
non-GPL SmartEiffel libraries.

Regards,
Roger Browne