| |||||||
adm | Find | login register |
因為要將 gcin 提交到新版的 openSUSE 我收到一封信,全文如下,為了慎重起見來請教各位的意見 [Bug 752455] New: gcin 2.7.5 declared LGPL-2.1+ but includes GPL-2.0 licensed qt-im
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752455
https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752455#c0 Summary: gcin 2.7.5 declared LGPL-2.1+ but includes GPL-2.0 licensed qt-im Classification: SUSE Tools Product: SUSE Linux Legal Issues Version: unspecified Platform: Other OS/Version: Other Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority: P5 - None Component: License Issues AssignedTo: swyear@gmail.com ReportedBy: cfarrell@suse.com QAContact: jw@suse.com Group: Legal Security Team Found By: --- Blocker: --- The spec file for gcin 2.7.5 (as well as most of the source code files) state that the package is LGPL-2.1+ licensed. However, a subcomponent included with the package (qt-im) appears to be licensed under one of the older QT licenses - a dual license choice of either the Trolltech QPL or the GPL-2.0. If qt-im is compiled with qcin, you will need to investigate how it is used. If it is compiled into a standalone binary with no relationship (other than e.g. IPC or network sockets) with the LGPL-2.1+ licensed binary, then the only problem is that the spec file should be updated to read: License: LGPL-2.1+ and GPL-2.0 However, if the nature of the interaction is such that compiling a single binary out of all the source code could be said to have created a derived work (e.g. of the qt-im code), then the entire resulting binary would need to be licensed under the GPL-2.0. This would mean the spec file should state: License: GPL-2.0 Alternatively, if the qt-im comoponents are compiled as subpackages, then each subpackage should carry its own license (GPL-2.0). That is currently not the case with the qcin specfile. 因為有些我看不懂,所以要麻煩各位
我是否可以將 License 就寫 LGPL-2.1+ and GPL-2.0 ?
還是要如何才對
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
這個要會寫程式的會比較清楚,我也不太瞭解,只能提供參考鏈結 GPL 條款對於衍生程式的判定標準與其授權拘束性的擴散範圍(上) GPL 條款對於衍生程式的判定標準與其授權拘束性的擴散範圍(下) 圖示的部份,可參考 GPL 授權的圖示 Edit: 看 GPL 條款對於衍生程式的判定標準與其授權拘束性的擴散範圍(下) 的流程圖,我個人認為應該不會啟動 GPL 的授權拘束性。寫程式我是外行,但即使沒有 qt immodule,gcin 還是可以用 xim 在 qt 程式中使用,缺少 qt immodule 應該不影響 gcin 的主要功能,故我認為 gcin 不會被 GPL 感染 。 如果我的看法無誤,應可直接 gcin 主程式 LGPL 2.1 (前陣子才因有沒有 "or later" 而有爭議,gcin 是宣告 LGPL 2.1,沒有 "or later",所以 2.1 後面那個 "+" 理論上不該存在) 、QT4 的部份為 GPL or QPL (版本?)。 edited: 3
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
coolcd : 謝謝您的解答,我大概就是將 gcin 部份的授權寫 LGPL2.1 而 qt-im 的 subpackage 另行在 spec 當中宣告為 GPL2.0 這樣可以嗎? 我畫的那一組圖示,就跟著 gcin 宣告成 LGPL2.1 的授權好了 swyear<-完全狀況外 edited: 1
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
呃……只是按常識判斷,說不上是解答 敝人只是一個法律知識有限的普通 gcin 使用者 認知有誤也說不定 :P |
| |||||||
adm | Find | login register |