[MonoDevelop] Licensing concerns.

[Christoph Wille]

If you take existing MIT code and stick it into a GPL application, fine. If 
you extend a GPL application with newly written code that must rely on 
infrastructure (short for assemblies and existing code) provided by GPLed 
code, you cannot license that new code under MIT unless it does not contain 
any linkage against GPLed code at the time you license it as MIT.

As it seems we have a totally different understanding, it is time to call 
in the lawyers.

Chris

At 10:45 PM 7/13/2004, Todd Berman wrote:
>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.
>
>--Todd