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

[Christian Hofstader]

someone tomorrow over at GNU who can help me answer your questions. I get 
confused about the compatibility questions myself and as I'm mostly working on 
fundraising right now, I haven't had the time to sit down and learn all of the 
things I should in order to answer questions here.I'm sorry, I just don't know 
all of the answers to the licensing stuff. I'll be on the phone with 
On Sep 2, 2010, at 3:03 PM, Jamal Mazrui wrote:

> 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.
>> 
> 
> 
>