Fwd: Re: GPL compatibility with CTL licence

Hi,

After our discution yesterday on openexr-develnongnu.org, I have asked the 
opinion of licensingfsf.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

_______________________________________________
kimageshop mailing list
kimageshopkde.org
http
s://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kimageshop

Cyrille,

did you forward the entire answer you got from the FSF?
In your mail I did not see any statement to the effect that
linking your project with CTL is prohibited by the GPL,
much
less an explanation why this would be the case.

By the way, you may want to consider changing the licensing
of your own project.

Florian


Cyrille Berger wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> After our discution yesterday on openexr-develnongnu.org, I have asked the 
> opinion of licensingfsf.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.
> 
> 
> 
>
------------------------------------------------------------
------------
> 
> Subject:
> Re: [gnu.org #348899] GPL compatibility with CTL
licence
> From:
> "Brett Smith via RT" <licensingfsf.org>
> Date:
> Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:11:54 -0500
> To:
> cbergercberger.net
> 
> To:
> cbergercberger.net
> 
> 
> 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-develnongnu.org and kimageshopkde.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,
> 
> 
> 
>
------------------------------------------------------------
------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openexr-devel mailing list
> Openexr-develnongnu.org
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/openexr-devel


_______________________________________________
kimageshop mailing list
kimageshopkde.org
http
s://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kimageshop

Florian Kainz <kainzilm.com> writes:

> Cyrille,
>
> did you forward the entire answer you got from the
FSF?
> In your mail I did not see any statement to the effect
that
> linking your project with CTL is prohibited by the GPL,
much
> less an explanation why this would be the case.


According to the FSF representative, the AMPAS jurisdiction
clause
violates the licensing terms of the GPLv2 and v3 (or is it
vice
versa?), so it's illegal to *distribute* a program that
links GPL code
with the AMPAS CTL code.  Linking is fine as long as you
don't intend
to distribute it, but there's not much point in choosing GPL
unless
you plan to distribute your code, which renders CTL
effectively
unusable in GPL programs.  CTL isn't the only free software
package to
have this problem -- there are many free software licenses
which are
incompatible with the GPL -- but it is unfortunate.

Dunno if you remember, but incompatibility with the GPL was
one of the
reasons we declined to use the MPL for OpenEXR.

d

_______________________________________________
kimageshop mailing list
kimageshopkde.org
http
s://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kimageshop