.:: Bots United ::. - Licenses..

.:: Bots United ::. (http://forums.bots-united.com/index.php)

- General Programming (http://forums.bots-united.com/forumdisplay.php?f=25)

- - Licenses.. (http://forums.bots-united.com/showthread.php?t=4513)

I started a new project, and was wondering what license problems arrise when I link needed libraries static?
I'm not 100% sure what the actual license for the prog is going to be(probably GPL), but its using some libs which are released under (a modified version of ) the BSD license(libarchive, cdk).
So does anyone know if I can link these libraries static at all?

Quote:

I'm not 100% sure what the actual license for the prog is going to be (probably GPL), but its using some libs which are released under (a modified version of ) the BSD license (libarchive, cdk).

if that "BSD License" contains a clause like "all advertising materials blahblah..." then you can't use others GPL'ed code into this, but it's ok to GPL your part of code with a special exception. Otherwise it will be okay.
See this one for details:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....compatibleLibs

the FSF has a list of which license is "compatiable" with GPL:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

also if you have questions on this, asking the FSF directly at (licensing at gnu dot org) if the question is about the GPL, or posting in the debian-legal mailing list (debian-legal at lists dot debian dot org) may be a good idea.

EDIT: I've checked the licenses and the CDK seems to be a problem because of this:

Quote:

* 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
* must display the following acknowledgment:
* This product includes software developed by Mike Glover
* and contributors.

So you can't use others' GPL'ed code and using others' LGPL'ed code will require dynamic linking or releasing the .o files. But you can solve this problem in this way for your part of code if you want to use GPL:

Quote:

* In addition, as a special exception, the author gives permission to
* link the code of this program with the CDK developed by Mike Glover,
* or modified versions of CDK under the original license terms.
* You must obey the GNU General Public License in all respects for all
* of the code used other than the CDK. If you modify this file, you
* may extend this exception to your version of the file, but you are
* not obligated to do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this
* exception statement from your version.

Thanks for your reply.
So basicly, if I GPL my program, I have to add that extra text to the license section and everything is OK? And is this the case for any 'GPL-incompatible' libs(I think ncurses is incompatible too)?

"So basicly, if I GPL my program, I have to add that extra text to the license section and everything is OK?"

Short answer: yes.

The problem is, if you don't add that text, then _in theory_ others won't be able to legally distribute your program at all. Practically they can safely assume that there is an implied exception because your original program is supposed to be linked against that library, however adding that text will be a clarification. Also some groups like Debian will consider GPL'ed code without exceptions to link against a GPL-incompatiable library (such as the KDE before 2000) as non-distributable package and will refuse to include them in their distro.

"And is this the case for any 'GPL-incompatible' libs(I think ncurses is incompatible too)?"

ncurses license is GPL-compatiable (which is basically identical as the X11 License, and imposes no further restriction than GPL) and is no problem.

Alright thanks for the clarification :)
I wonder how apps like Opera and ut2004 can be static though...

That recursive-advertising clause in the BSD license has disappeared for DECADES. The GNU folks should better keep themselves up to date sometimes :D

2005 - 1999 = 6 < 10, not "decades" :D

also even if the UC Berkeley removed that clause, some other people have NOT removed it. And UCB has no rights to change others' licenses, especially when it isn't a BSD derivative.

This is similar as Linux (the kernel, not GNU/Linux), which is released under GPL version 2 only (not "either version 2 of the license, or (at your option) any later version"). Even if FSF released a newer version of GPL, it has no effective to Linux unless it's adopted by Linus and other authors of Linux.