[MonoDevelop] Licensing concerns.

Todd Berman tberman@off.net
Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:45:36 -0400

On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 22:42 +0200, Christoph Wille wrote:
> At 10:34 PM 7/13/2004, Todd Berman wrote:
> >On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 22:33 +0200, Christoph Wille wrote:
> > > At 10:23 PM 7/13/2004, you wrote:
> > > >Right now, the new code in MonoDevelop is under basically NO license,
> > > >which is totally unacceptable.
> > >
> > > Not exactly; as every contribution will link against something that came
> > > from #develop (core, whatever else) it is derivative work. Even though it
> > > is lots of work. That's the whole idea of the GPL.
> >
> >It is not a derivative work just because it 'links', if linking created
> >a derivative work, you wouldn't need the tainting clauses in the GPL.
> Why do you think was the LGPL created?

That is a totally seperate issue. I would like to see pieces of the GPL
language that require all new code that 'links' to the GPL to be
licensed in the GPL. My understanding is that any GPL compatible license
is allowable. This understanding comes from Section 2 of the GPL which
allows us to create a work based on the 'Program' and distribute it
according to Section 1. Section 1 makes no requirements about the code
being GPL, just that it:

  1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
along with the Program.

The only potential issue is 2b, however as the Program would still be
released at no charge to all third parties, and in accordance with the
GPL, I don't see this as an issue.

As I said before, the product would be GPL, it would stay GPL, and the
licensing information contained would stay exactly where it is.

Remember, we are not talking about relicensing MD itself, but the code
inside of it, the new contributed code in specific.

I dont believe this provides any legal issue at all, and I would require
some more information to show me otherwise.


> Chris