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

[Jamal Mazrui]

Hi Chris,
I was not referring to what tools one uses to develop programs, but what
code is incorporated in the result.  I thought this list was a good
place to ask, since if you could not answer right away, presumably you
or another GNU representative could get an authoritative answer for us.
This affects not just the BrailleBlaster project, but anyone wanting to
develop accessible programs that is interested in GNU support.  Can such
programs incorporate other software that is not GPL-compatible?  I know
from prior discussions that it cannot incorporate proprietary software,
so wonder whether there is also an issue with other programs that are
free, open source but not GPL-compatible.

Jamal


-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden
[mailto:address@hidden On Behalf
Of Christian Hofstader
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 2:22 PM
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Access-activists] New member with a big project

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.
>