On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 08:27:55AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > Historically, the Sleepycat license was deemed compatible with the GPL, > version 2, because it was another (soft) copyleft license. > > However, I'm not so sure if this is true for GPL, version 3. The Sleepycat > license implements copyleft like this: > > “ > 3. Redistributions in any form must be accompanied by information on how > to > obtain complete source code for the cryptlib software and any > accompanying > software that uses the cryptlib software. The source code must either > be > included in the distribution or be available for no more than the cost > of > distribution, and must be freely redistributable under reasonable > conditions. For an executable file, complete source code means the > source > code for all modules it contains or uses. […] > ” > > The above appears to be a further restriction on top of the GPL, version 3, > which gives this permission: > > “ > You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not > convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains > in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose > of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you > with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with > the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do > not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works > for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction > and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of > your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you. > ” > > I think it is impossible to grant a downstream user these additional > permissions if the combined work also needs to comply with the Sleepycat > license. I think the question comes down to whether source code that is subject to the kind of contract contemplated in the quoted language of GPLv3 section 2 is "freely redistributable under reasonable conditions". In particular are the contemplated restrictions on distribution of trade secret modifications by a contractor "reasonable conditions" on the free redistribution of the source code actually given to the contractor? I don't recall addressing Sleepycat/GPLv3 compatibility before but I'm inclined to say "by default, no". Here, though, you have a developer who has evidently continued to put cryptlib under a Sleepycat-like license continuously even after the introduction of GPLv3, with a continued insistence on that license being GPL-compatible in an obvious attempt to benefit from such a characterization. As such I think for purposes of cryptlib the license should be interpreted in such a way that it does not give rise to a conflict with GPLv3. Richard _______________________________________________ legal mailing list legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
