How hard is it to realize the FSF is talking about combining GPL and Apache licenced code in a single project (which would be a derivative work) vs. linking with an Apache licenced API/library, which the licence explicitly states does NOT constitute a derived work?
Relicensing Dolphin: The long road to GPLv2+
|
(05-31-2015, 01:10 PM)tueidj Wrote: How hard is it to realize the FSF is talking about combining GPL and Apache licenced code in a single project (which would be a derivative work) vs. linking with an Apache licenced API/library, which the licence explicitly states does NOT constitute a derived work? That maybe what Apache states, but the GPL does consider that anything linked to it should be covered under compatible licenses. Anyway, it's a legal gray area that we wanted to get rid of, so we did. If we considered it a blatant violation then we would never have been able to merge the Android branch, since we don't make a habit out of violating our own license. 06-01-2015, 03:03 AM
(05-31-2015, 11:04 PM)Armada Wrote: That maybe what Apache states, but the GPL does consider that anything linked to it should be covered under compatible licenses.Better stop linking with kernel32.dll, user32.dll etc. because they definitely don't use a compatible licence either. Except that they're system libraries, covered by the exemption (which doesn't just apply to source code, that would be stupid - GPL apps would be incompatible with any closed source operating system). Quote:Anyway, it's a legal gray area that we wanted to get rid of, so we did. If we considered it a blatant violation then we would never have been able to merge the Android branch, since we don't make a habit out of violating our own license.It's really not. Do you think Google, with their legal army, didn't take GPL programs into account when they chose the Apache licence? If you want to change your licence then fine, go right ahead, but if you want to make a big public show of it make sure you've got your facts straight first. 06-01-2015, 06:49 PM
Quote:Do you think Google, with their legal army, didn't take GPL programs into account when they chose the Apache licence Android doesn't use much GNU code in userland, so I doubt they really cared. But even then, the answer is simple: GPLv3 is compatible with the Apache 2.0 license, and has been for about as long as Android existed. Reminder: we're not saying linking with Android's system libraries is an issue, we're saying linking with pretty much any non-system library made for Android is currently impossible because almost everything for that system is licensed under Apache 2.0. And that limits greatly our option for the Android UI. 06-01-2015, 07:06 PM
(06-01-2015, 06:49 PM)delroth Wrote: Reminder: we're not saying linking with Android's system libraries is an issue, we're saying linking with pretty much any non-system library made for Android is currently impossible because almost everything for that system is licensed under Apache 2.0. And that limits greatly our option for the Android UI. You might not be saying that, but a quick look back at the previous two pages shows that others certainly are. This is why I asked specifically how Dolphin is being affected (and was given an irrelevant link to a FSF page as a response); what are the non-system libraries that are being used, because if they're not part of the NDK (which should all be considered system code; the system is built on top of it, after all) it sounds like a recipe for future incompatibility. 06-03-2015, 05:55 AM
If I'm right (which is unlikely, because I'm just going off what I've read in this thread and 30 seconds with google) up until the licence was changed, we couldn't technically make DolphinQt, as Qt is GPL3, and Dolphin was GPL2, and there's no way to argue that Qt is a system library because it's fairly obviously not.
OS: Windows 10 64 bit Professional
CPU: AMD Ryzen 5900X RAM: 48GB GPU: Radeon 7800 XT 06-03-2015, 06:19 AM
(06-03-2015, 05:55 AM)AnyOldName3 Wrote: If I'm right (which is unlikely, because I'm just going off what I've read in this thread and 30 seconds with google) up until the licence was changed, we couldn't technically make DolphinQt, as Qt is GPL3, and Dolphin was GPL2, and there's no way to argue that Qt is a system library because it's fairly obviously not. Qt is also available under LGPLv2.1, which is compatible with GPLv2. 06-06-2015, 06:33 PM
My friend's uncle who works at Nintendo said if Dolphin was BSD they would port it to NX.
06-07-2015, 11:49 AM
06-08-2015, 05:46 AM
I've been emailing rms about the whole GIMP/Sourcefraud debacle lately, so seeing this update today was right up my alley.
I've read all the comments yet posted, have some questions myself, but am very contented to thank you all for your kindness-of-heart contributions and quote one of the sentences in said article, "Open source emulators are sort of like a big family; we collaborate, we argue, we sometimes fight, but in the end we share a singular common goal." |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)