Re: GNOME's license and Apache? (Adding Simpy to epilicious)

["Luis Villa" <luis tieguy org>]

[I think you probably meant desktop-devel-list instead of gnome-devel
list; am cc'ing d-d-l.]

On 4/11/07, Magnus Therning <magnus therning org> wrote:
> (I'm not entirely sure where to send this so pardon the cross-posting.)
>
> I'm looking into adding support for Simpy[1] to epilicious (an extension
> to Epiphany, part of epiphany-extensions since 2.18).  There is a Python
> module that makes it easy to deal with Simpy, which is great.  However
> that module is licensed under Apache License version 2 and [2] says that
> license doesn't play nice with GPL2.

Your [2] is correct; GPL2 and Apache do not play nicely together.

For what it is worth, I have noted to the FSF/SFLC today that we are
seeing an increased interest in linking Apache licensed code into
GNOME code, and that GNOME would be very appreciative if Apache and
GPLv3 were interoperable. The responses I got from the various lawyers
involved was positive, so it is possible that this may happen.

> What are my options in this case?
>
>  Is dual-licensing a possibility (given that I can convince the author
>  of course)?

Absolutely, if you can convince them to do it. This would almost
certainly be the best route to take.

>  Would there be a problem at all from a GNOME POV to simply include the
>  Python module in question?  (It would make it into GNOME SVN at some
>  point.)

Historically GNOME doesn't really care what license you use to put
things in SVN, but we have typically required GPL/LGPL for things
which are in project releases.

Additionally, I'd hope we never put anything in the release with a
conflicting license problem.

> Writing a small Python module tailored for epilicious needs is of course
> always an option, but I'd like to avoid that if possible ;-)

Of course. But realize that it is likely a better option than
flaunting the licenses. :)

Before someone else mentions it, I'm not sure how Ephy's extensions
work; it isn't completely impossible that some combination of liberal
reading of the GPL + specific behavior of the extensions means that
the extension + plugin is not a covered work and hence the conflict
doesn't matter. (This is similar to how Ubuntu distributes proprietary
kernel modules, even though the kernel is GPL v2.) I would not
recommend following this route, though; down that route lies pain.

HTH-
Luis