GPL compatible licensing

Mark Asbach <[email protected]> Tue, 9 Mar 2004 18:06:53 +0100
Newsgroups gmane.comp.lib.mtl.devel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
Hi MTL and ITL authors,

I have a question regarding the licensing of MTL and ITL. This topic 
has been discussed on this list before, but the results of that 
discussion aren't really helpful to me. See:

	http://www.osl.iu.edu/MailArchives/mtl-devel/msg00284.php

My problem is the fact that the GNU Public License forbids linking 
GPLed software of third parties to software that isn't covered by a GPL 
compatible license. The license of the MTL might be GPL compatible, the 
ITL license however is not. This is mainly due to the clause

> Permission is hereby granted to use or copy this program for any 
> non-commercial purpose

as well as the references to the law of Indiana in

> Any disputes arising out of this Agreement or LICENSEE'S use of the 
> software at any time shall be resolved by the courts of the state of 
> Indiana. LICENSEE hereby consents to the jurisdiction of the Indiana 
> courts and waives the right to challenge the jurisdiction thereof in 
> any dispute arising out of this Agreement or Licensee's use of the 
> software.

In the consequence, this means that others who wish to use the MTL 
and/or ITL for open source software projects (as we do here) can't link 
GPL'ed software at the same time. In our case, we are working on an 
open source finite elements toolkit that uses MTL/ITL for its solvers 
but provides an embedded python interpreter for the postprocessing. Now 
we can't load GPL'ed modules needed for our user interface or as 
another example the readline library that provides commandline 
completion.

It would be very nice to have a relicensed MTL/ITL that came under a 
GPL compatible license. For a list of GPL compatible licenses, see the 
FSF's license pages:

	http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

In the case of ITL and MTL both licenses seem to approach the Artistic 
License. Relicensing under the Artistic License 2.0 therefore would be 
the easiest way to accomplish GPL compatibility. Any chance on this?

Thanks in advance,

Mark

P.S.: CC to the original poster's current email address (hopefully)

_______________________________________________
This list is archived at http://www.osl.iu.edu/MailArchives/mtl-devel/