search

minoca / os

Minoca operating system
Other
2.71k stars 231 forks source link

Use LGPL v2.1 instead of v3 #139

Closed IBPX closed 6 years ago

IBPX commented 6 years ago

Could LGPL v2.1 be used instead? GPL v2 programs cannot legally use LGPL v3 libraries (see GNU's compatibility chart), but they can use LGPL v2.1 libraries. (LGPL v2.1 libraries are compatible with both GPL v2 and v3 programs.)

Using LGPL v3 means proprietary software can link against the libraries, but GPL v2 software cannot.

evangreen commented 6 years ago

Hi IBPX.

I'm not a lawyer, so I could be way off here (and the official word on this is still the license itself), but this is my understanding:

You are indeed allowed under most common open source licenses to compile, link, and run programs created with incompatible open source licenses on your own machine. The GPL does not seek to limit your use of its software, it only moderates the distribution of software (or rather, it attempts to prevent others from limiting its distribution). The second paragraph of section 2 covers your ability to "do whatever you want in private".

So if you are someone looking to either 1) distribute our C library headers with your own sources or 2) distribute binary versions of programs linked using our headers, AND you've licensed your own software under "GPL2 only" (rather than GPL2 or later), our LGPL3'ed headers prohibit that. If the code you're compiling was licensed with "GPL2 or later", or any other compatible license, then you're still free to distribute binaries and source under GPLv3.

I think I'm comfortable with that limitation. I'm happy to work out exemptions on a case by case basis. But I'd be interested to understand why binaries need to be distributed rather than source, and why the GPL2-only license cannot be upgraded.

If there's a specific goal you're trying to achieve, let's talk about it. We're pretty flexible here.

IBPX commented 6 years ago

MySQL is GPLv2-only, so shipping binaries for Minoca OS is a violation of its license.

GPLv2-only cannot generally be upgraded because most FOSS projects do not have a CLA or specify a proxy who can accept a newer version.

Not being able to ship binaries means someone can't ship a device running GPLv2 software on Minoca OS. In this case, I think most would just use a different OS that allows this, such as Linux, *BSD, or MINIX.

Why restrict what programs can legally be shipped for Minoca OS? What is the benefit of using LGPLv3 instead of v2.1?

evangreen commented 6 years ago

You're bringing up some good points here, and I'm not familiar with the intricacies of copyright law. It does appear that others seem to view the C library headers as a clean line of separation, and don't seem to be worried about their license as it relates to the GPL.

So for now I think I'm still satisfied taking my cues from other major OSes. But I don't mean to brush off your concerns. If you're building and planning to distribute something specific and are worried about the licensing implications, we're happy to talk. If you want to take this offline, my email is evan at minocacorp.

IBPX commented 6 years ago

I meant to comment this yesterday: GPL's "system libraries exception" seems to allow linking to any system libraries, even entirely non-free ones.

However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.

See What legal issues come up if I use GPL-incompatible libraries with GPL software? in the GPLv2 FAQ.

So it seems my concerns are pretty baseless. They would only apply to libraries other than system libraries.