cht電腦資訊gcin
adm Find login register

請問授權問題

swyear
joined: 2007-10-04
posted: 127
promoted: 4
bookmarked: 0
1subject: 請問授權問題Promote 0 Bookmark 02012-03-15quote  

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

收件匣
x
bugzilla_noreply@novell.com
21:59 (34 分鐘前)
 
寄給
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
swyear
joined: 2007-10-04
posted: 127
promoted: 4
bookmarked: 0
2subject: Promote 0 Bookmark 02012-03-15quote  

另外我用了我自己貢獻給 gcin 的圖示,上面也要求要有一個授權,我個人完全沒概念

請問我該選擇哪一個比較好?

coolcd
joined: 2008-01-21
posted: 2596
promoted: 348
bookmarked: 95
3subject: Promote 0 Bookmark 02012-03-15quote  

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)

GPL2的授權承繼性:以CMS程式與版型為例

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
swyear
joined: 2007-10-04
posted: 127
promoted: 4
bookmarked: 0
4subject: Promote 0 Bookmark 02012-03-16quote  

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
coolcd
joined: 2008-01-21
posted: 2596
promoted: 348
bookmarked: 95
5subject: Promote 0 Bookmark 02012-03-16quote  

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

cht電腦資訊gcin
adm Find login register
views:12798