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/