Re: [Access-activists] New member with a big project

[John J. Boyer]

We need the legal guys here. BrailleBlaster uses SWT, which I understand 
is under the eclipse license. We will not use any code from Eclipse 
itself. SWT has the advantage of better cross-platform support. We use 
LGPL libraries. We can avoid using anything GPL if necessary.

John

On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 02:21:57PM -0400, Christian Hofstader wrote:
> I haven't looked into the Eclipse license but GNU hackers often use Eclipse 
> as an IDE of choice (I prefer emacspeak but I'm old and quirky). There may be 
> some issues if one were to use code from Eclipse under the Eclipse license in 
> a GPL program as the different licenses may not mix properly  in all places.
> 
> I'm the accessibility guy, you should ask one of the legal types.
> 
> I don't think BrailleBlaster is actually using any Eclipse code but, rather, 
> is just using the IDE which makes no matter regarding licenses as its output 
> isn't covered by its license. I think John uses a command line compiler and 
> bash is definitely GPL as it was original GNU code.
> 
> I'm told Eclipse works pretty good on all platforms which, for John and his 
> crew, is really important.
> 
> cdh
> 
> On Sep 2, 2010, at 11:56 AM, Jamal Mazrui wrote:
> 
> > I realize there are other free licenses besides GPL, but thought that
> > GNU only promoted (via various resources) programs that were at least
> > GPL-compatible in their licenses.  That is my main question regarding
> > the Braille Blaster project.  I know that it can proceed with any
> > combination of licenses without GNU support.  Since such support could
> > be helpful, however, I am trying to determine whether the use of
> > Eclipse-licensed software is an obstacle.  What I have read on both
> > gnu.org and eclipse.org implies that it would be an obstacle, but if
> > there is conceptually something I am missing that reconciles these
> > issues, I want to understand it.
> > 
> > Jamal
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: address@hidden
> > [mailto:address@hidden On Behalf
> > Of Jason Self
> > Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 11:27 AM
> > To: address@hidden
> > Cc: address@hidden
> > Subject: RE: [Access-activists] New member with a big project
> > 
> > Jamal Mazrui wrote...
> > 
> >> What does it mean for a license to be "incompatible" with the GPL?
> > 
> > From the FAQ at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html which should be
> > helpful in understanding:
> > 
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean
> > 
> >> How can a developer know that a project retains GPL compatibility?  I 
> >> thought it was by checking the discussion of specific licenses at
> >>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
> > 
> > I think that's a good place to go for license compatibility information.
> > 
> >> I thought that list is based on an application of the relevant freedom
> > 
> >> principles.
> > 
> > It's a little bit of both: It documents both free and non-free software
> > licenses, but if you'll notice, the free software licenses are broken
> > down into GPL-compatible ones and GPL-incompatible ones.
> > 
> > The GPL is used by lots of free software programs so maintaining
> > compatibility with it is generally a good thing in my opinion, but just
> > because a license isn't compatible with the GPL doesn't automatically
> > mean it's non-free. Whether it's a free software license or not depends
> > on what the license says.
> > 
> 

-- 
John J. Boyer; President, Chief Software Developer
Abilitiessoft, Inc.
http://www.abilitiessoft.com
Madison, Wisconsin USA
Developing software for people with disabilities