From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2037 invoked by alias); 13 Feb 2002 17:06:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact sourcenav-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: sourcenav-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 1970 invoked from network); 13 Feb 2002 17:06:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO magellan) (12.145.176.35) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Feb 2002 17:06:14 -0000 Received: FROM aztec.waukbearing.com BY magellan ; Wed Feb 13 11:14:29 2002 -0600 Received: by AZTEC with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <1Y0VZMB6>; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:06:11 -0600 Message-ID: <50D13214B9CBD41180800008C7CFB62C45F4D5@AZTEC> From: "Davies, Mike" To: sourcenav@sources.redhat.com Subject: RE: SN backend GPL or LGPL? (was: SourceNav release...) Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 10:38:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-SW-Source: 2002-q1/txt/msg00066.txt.bz2 Hi Robert, IANAL, but : > If we did have the back end torn off of SN, would that make everything > that used also GPL? Yes, if it was an extension of GPLed code > Can we take SN type GPL code, turn it into a library, and > then use it in > an LGPL way? Nope. > What if we had some sort of Corba type middle ware that provided a > decent distributed API, without actually linking the code in. > Would any > application that connected to it still be bound by the GPL? Any changes you made to the Sourcenav Code would be GPLed and you would have to provide them in the usual ways, however it seems to me that any application that used the CORBA interface would be effectively dynamically linked to it and so might escape the GPL. > I am trying to find out here if there is any room for commercial > developers to contribute to SN. It would be a shame to let > it all go to > waste. Well, many commercial firms contribute to GPLed SW, there is nothing stopping you from doing that. If you are trying to make a proprietry version of SourceNav then this is prohibited by the licence. That is quite apart from the implications for the feelings of people who contributed their efforts freely for the common good. Mike Davies