'Fwd: Re: [gnu.org #348899] GPL compatibility with CTL licence'

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-kimageshop
Subject:    Fwd: Re: [gnu.org #348899] GPL compatibility with CTL licence
From:       Cyrille Berger <cberger () cberger ! net>
Date:       2007-12-06 23:31:43
Message-ID: 200712070031.43308.cberger () cberger ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi,

After our discution yesterday on openexr-devel@nongnu.org, I have asked the 
opinion of licensing@fsf.org, and here is the two answers I got. So the third 
clause (patent and trademark) is not a problem with GPL. But they confirm 
that the jurisdiction clause is not compatible with GPL (or the other way 
arround ;) ).

And indeed that concern only the ctl library and not openexr which use a more 
classical BSD licence.

I am going to contact AMPAS about it and will keep you inform.

-- 
Cyrille Berger

["forwarded message" (message/rfc822)]

Return-Path: <www-data@gnu.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.3 (2007-08-08) on blade
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_05 autolearn=ham
	version=3.2.3
X-Original-To: cyrille@diwi.org
Delivered-To: cyrille@diwi.org
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by wahe.diwi.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97AC3B3F89
	for <cyrille@diwi.org>; Thu,  6 Dec 2007 23:04:22 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at diwi.org
Received: from wahe.diwi.org ([127.0.0.1])
	by localhost (wahe.diwi.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id PHVvZYeaCmyk for <cyrille@diwi.org>;
	Thu,  6 Dec 2007 23:04:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: from redir-mail-telehouse1.gandi.net (redir-mail-telehouse1.gandi.net \
[217.70.180.1])  by wahe.diwi.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75DF9B3F88
	for <cyrille@diwi.org>; Thu,  6 Dec 2007 23:04:22 +0100 (CET)
Received: from rt.gnu.org (rt.gnu.org [199.232.76.167])
	by glenlivet.gandi.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2984A445C50
	for <cberger@cberger.net>; Thu,  6 Dec 2007 23:04:15 +0100 (CET)
Received: from www-data by rt.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <www-data@gnu.org>)
	id 1J0Owk-00055d-Oq
	for cberger@cberger.net; Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:11:54 -0500
Subject: Re: [gnu.org #348899] GPL compatibility with CTL licence
From: "Brett Smith via RT" <licensing@fsf.org>
Reply-To: licensing@fsf.org
In-Reply-To: <20071206220406.GR18464@spider.office.fsf.org>
References: <RT-Ticket-348899@rt.gnu.org> \
<20071206213319.GO18464@spider.office.fsf.org> \
<rt-3.4.5-31485-1196977268-141.348899-5-0@rt.gnu.org> \
<200712062255.50115.cberger@cberger.net> \
<rt-3.4.5-6160-1196978635-1999.348899-75-0@rt.gnu.org> \
                <20071206220406.GR18464@spider.office.fsf.org>
Message-ID: <rt-3.4.5-6160-1196979113-626.348899-5-0@rt.gnu.org>
Precedence: bulk
X-RT-Loop-Prevention: gnu.org
RT-Ticket: gnu.org #348899
Managed-by: RT 3.4.5 (http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/)
RT-Originator: brett@gnu.org
To: cberger@cberger.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-RT-Original-Encoding: utf-8
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:11:54 -0500
X-Bogosity: Unsure, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.500001, version=1.1.5
X-UID: 

On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 05:03:56PM -0500, Cyrille Berger via RT wrote:
> But what about the third clause ? I am going to try to see with the authors if 
> they are willing to change the licence, and I want to be sure that the 
> jurisdiction clause is the only problem ?

I have not consulted with a lawyer, and so this is not a final answer, but
I don't think the third clause is an obstacle to GPL-compatibility.  The
first part merely states what most people would assume to be true anyway if
the license said nothing about the subject at all.  The second part,
restricting your use of related names for publicity purposes, is fairly
standard and one we've accepted as GPL-compatible before; see, for example,
the Standard ML of New Jersey license.

> Is it ok if I forward your answer to some mailing list (mainly 
> openexr-devel@nongnu.org and kimageshop@kde.org) where those issues have been 
> discussed in the past and where other people might look having the same 
> question ?

Feel free to share my e-mails verbatim with those lists.  Please make sure
you include the quoted parts as well as my original text; they help
establish important context and avoid misunderstandings.

Best regards,

-- 
Brett Smith
Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation

Please note that I am not an attorney.  This is not legal advice.

["gnu.mbox" (application/mbox)]

_______________________________________________
kimageshop mailing list
kimageshop@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kimageshop

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 