Re: Building gnomemeeting-1.22

Agreed... But not my call.  Waiting for Paul to decide.


On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 13:38 -0700, Bob Kashani wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-09-18 at 12:30 -0400, Joseph E. Sacco, PhD wrote:
> > There are some yet to be resolved licensing issues with openh323/pwlib
> > that Paul was looking into.
> pwlib/work/main.d/pwlib-1.8.7/ReadMe.txt under license:
> openh323 has the same license.
> ---snip---
> 9. Licensing
> ------------
> The bulk of this library is licensed under the MPL (Mozilla Public
> License)
> version 1.0. In simple terms this license allows you to use the library
> for
> any purpose, commercial or otherwise, provided the library is kept in
> tact
> as a separate entity and any changes made to the library are made
> publicly
> available under the same (MPL) license. It is important to realise that
> that
> refers to changes to the library and not your application that is merely
> linked to the library.
> Note that due to a restriction in the GPL, any application you write
> that
> uses anything another than GPL, eg our library with MPL, is technically
> in
> breach of the GPL license. However, it should be noted that MPL does not
> care about the license of the final application, and as only the author
> of
> the GPL application is in breach of his own license and is unlikely to
> sue
> themselves for that breach, in practice there is no problem with a GPL
> application using an MPL or any other commercial library.
> ---snip---
> It seems ok to me. Both Fedora (Red Hat) and Ubuntu (Debian) ship
> pwlib/openh323 so it seems absurd to me that we wouldn't include a
> garball for them. Especially when you consider that we don't ship any
> software, just a link to the software. Paul...?
> Bob
joseph_sacco [at] comcast [dot] net

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]