[Ecls-list] Project status and changes (please read)
mm_lists at pulsar-zone.net
Sat Oct 19 01:40:56 UTC 2013
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 21:04:10 +0100
Dima Pasechnik <dimpase+ecl at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know what makes one think that LGPLv3 has issues with web applications.
> This applies to AGPL, but not to LGPL, as far as I know.
You are right about the AGPL, however, the LGPL3 license inherits from
the GPL3 one (the LGPL2 license was standalone), and this is as part of
13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have
permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed
under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single
combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this
License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work,
but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License,
section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the
combination as such.
Which is an invitation to include AGPL code (and whenever this happens,
the rest of the project becomes tainted, with the new usage
restrictions of the AGPL applying). I say usage restrictions, because
it's not only a distribution matter, but like an EULA affecting usage
(every running instance serving on a network must permit to download
the full project including any added code used by the site)... which
seems unacceptable (perhaps even unenforcable, and an unrealistic
restriction that many users would not follow).
That said, my impression is that if the project is centrally controlled
and its official distributions don't allow any AGPL tainted components
(and avoiding any AGPL tainted LGPL3 dependencies), it is probably
unlikely to become a problem?
However, including LGPL3 code into the source tree (GMP/MPIR in this
case) would force relicensing of ECL to LGPL3 or "LGPL3 and later"?
While there seems to be no FSF-sponsored "LGPL3 and later except for
clause 13 of the GPL pertaining to AGPL" alternative... Yet a
centrally controlled distribution could still refuse AGPL contributions
in the official source as a policy?
More information about the ecl-devel