[Fsf-friends] Re: [FSUG-Bangalore] Which license should I use?

[Ramanraj K]

Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>Anand Babu wrote:
>
>  
>
>>My recommendation is to adopt GNU GPL and find an alternative for the
>>MPL'ed code or write one yourself. You can also ask the MPL'ed code
>>author to dual-license with GNU GPL.
>>    
>>
>
>What happen's when the application in question only *installs* binary
>only packages that are licensed under licenses which are GPL incompatible ?
>  
>
Installing a binary released under a free license is almost never a sin. 

>eg. I create an application/interface that installs two RPMs for two
>packages A and B. A is GPL compatible if not GPL itself and B is GPL
>incompatible. How do I license my interface/application or does the
>license for my application (which in a non strict sense is only an
>installer) as GPL compatible meet all requirements ?
>  
>
You may license your interface/application as *you* please.

The "compatability" question is the extent to which you can relicense an 
existing work.  For example, the BSD license gives most freedom here: 
you could take code released under the BSD license and release it under 
the GPL (BSD is therefore GPL compatible) or even release it under a 
non-free license.  GPLed code can be released only under the GPL and 
therefore, it would be seen as BSD incompatible.    The safest approach 
is to release the work under same license to avoid issues (and quite 
incidentally, respect the author's licensing philosophy :)

>ps: Kushal had called me up last night on this issue and frankly the mix
>of licenses puzzled me a bit and I suggested that he write in here. If
>anyone has another person/list he can go to it would surely be appreciated
>
The free software licenses are proliferating at such a pace that it is 
slowly becoming a nuisance (or opportunity, depending on what one does 
for a living). 

Today, the world is divided between those who publish source code, ie. 
free software developers releasing their work under a free license, and 
those who do not publish source code - non free software, where the 
source code is protected as a trade secret.  While the non-free entities 
have reasons to fight among themselves, the free software community 
could have no room for self-defeating issues.  All source code published 
on the internet should be deemed to be public domain software - atleast 
the decisions by the US courts are largely in that direction.  The shift 
should be towards placing all free software in the public domain so that 
free software license proliferation stops and more attention goes into 
writing useful code without duplicating efforts.