Re: compatibility matrix for /usr/share/common-licenses

On Sun, 30 Jun 2024 22:37:22 +0200 Serafeim Zanikolas wrote:

> hello Debian legal folks,

Hello Serafeim,
nice to read you!

> 
> I'm looking for an up-to-date compatibility matrix of /usr/share/common-licenses
> (modulo documentation licenses).
[...]
> I've prepared the following, where the license before the colon may
> be combined

If I understand correctly, we are talking about linking-compatibility
here.
Different compatibility relationships hold for mixing (that is to say,
taking parts of two works and merging them together to form a new work).

> with any common license *except* the ones listed right of the colon.
> do you see any mistakes? have I missed anything?
> 
> 	Apache-2.0:
> 	Artistic:
> 	BSD:
> 	GPL-2: GPL-3, MPL-1.1
> 	GPL-2+: MPL-1.1
> 	GPL-3: GPL-2, MPL-1.1
> 	LGPL-2: MPL-1.1
> 	LGPL-2.1: MPL-1.1
> 	LGPL-3: MPL-1.1
> 	MPL-1.1: GPL-2, GPL-2+, GPL-3, LGPL-2+, LGPL-2.1, LGPL-3
> 	MPL-2.0:
> 	OpenSSL: (GPL licenses ommitted here due to https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SystemLibraryException)

I think some incompatibilities are missing.
At least the following ones:

  Apache-2.0: GPL-2
  Artistic: GPL-1, GPL-2, GPL-3
  BSD:
  GPL-2: Apache-2.0, Artistic, GPL-1, GPL-3, LGPL-3, MPL-1.1, MPL-2.0[*]
  GPL-2+: Artistic, GPL-1, MPL-1.1, MPL-2.0[*]
  GPL-3: Artistic, GPL-1, GPL-2, MPL-1.1, MPL-2.0[*]
  LGPL-2: GPL-1, MPL-1.1, MPL-2.0[*]
  LGPL-2.1: GPL-1, MPL-1.1, MPL-2.0[*]
  LGPL-3: GPL-1, GPL-2, MPL-1.1, MPL-2.0[*]
  MPL-1.1: GPL-1, GPL-2, GPL-2+, GPL-3
  MPL-2.0[*]: GPL-1, GPL-2, GPL-2+, GPL-3
  OpenSSL: (GPL licenses ommitted here due to https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SystemLibraryException)

[*] Please note that the compatibility status of MPL-2.0 is more
complicated than a simple yes or no: it is compatible with "Secondary
Licenses", unless it is explicitly made incompatible with the notice
described in Exhibit B or the covered software was previously available
under MPL-1.1 or earlier, but not also dual-licensed under a "Secondary
License".
"Secondary Licenses" are: GPL-2+, LGPL-2.1+, AfferoGPL-3.0+

A terrible headache?!? I think so, that's why I abhor MPL-2.0 ... 

> 
> thanks,
> Serafeim

You're welcome!

Anyway, let's wait for some other debian-legal participants'
take on the matter...


-- 
 http://www.inventati.org/frx/
 There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
 GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82  3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEygERR5zS79/7gjklPhwn4R9pv/4FAmaB0woACgkQPhwn4R9p
v/4rLhAAthUgk+2N5fwsfXNxvmHBBDHRP9gYWpjtERq3e681g2HRX2ZOjOQ3E4cF
JiDOg0+H2VyPB5ybecQwba/ixB27YquJ5/uS6EeN2Yp0gaTWRfvIloeePYqtBzPx
6g3rfq8SB82Cfnogmd9qSH5nJ8xsKZF5GYCPKicQ7ABV/V+fRQZLShQv6Z2dmQJ9
tmQ8IloueTzzVIE6xvWVDtypxBJE5/f5VvsGei4I1L4dBGr1NKAwsR0dhVs63G4S
YbdTCDyTDp56QOZsALSRakaeyg+y8Y/XAoHIEvGyl29THwy+5DLaoO99oTK2pbJ8
aQ1GVbSxTyXAIlMtiFhQzpQLYXIooRt8w8RlaRbKSoxc/CNqQU+j1A5yo8gpCPYv
POPKE4tdZrNMW2Zy1sX33LR8Deq9g3ea7KUhWH1oxp48nLr3djcgmwwf31CNl3h9
FVK8a5ROC8V2YScr2xHYU6ssEnxNq6BQuwHIlgfbK9paidXmgAzHp6px/7nv8Ubm
DW52XaHb+wNqOe6/P68LrZdCVpmzou9L+A3pPbw8vCc5KLpWG08+yXnYoTTkQ0JH
ZWmnkEs4y/faiHcUo17GXsrYZWmqGGH23O3k6oYOdmBqMKMUp27Fp4WYMxxhqQae
3LUlMXYF6mJa7PLxC7fsC3ylfdfW/eysCNVMAKAC8ui5Rzjm7Dc=
=cfJx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----