Subject Re: [Firebird-Architect] Crypto Code
Author Jim Starkey
Alexander Klenin wrote:

>>I'm really sorry, but the document you references states definitively
>>that linking object modules subject to IPL (and by extension, IDPL) and
>>GPL is "illegal". While Firebird doesn't presume to say how you can use
>>the code, the Free Software Foundation most decidedly does.
>Not quite. As stated in section 0 of GPL "Activities other than
>copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this
>License; they are outside its scope.". So you can use any combination
>of GPL and IPL software, as long as you do not distribute it.
Excuse me, but the document you referenced includes:

Interbase Public License, Version 1.0

This is a free software license that is essentially the same as
the Mozilla Public License, Version 1.1. Like the MPL, the IPL
has some complex restrictions that make it incompatible with the
GNU GPL. That is, a module covered by the GPL and a module
covered by the IPL cannot legally be linked together. We urge
you not to use the IPL for this reason.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if the guys who wrote the GPL and sue
people who they believe violate it state that it is illegal to link
Firebird with GPL code, isn't the paragraph quoted a pretty clear
indication that you can have your butt sued off for mixing code?

>>I think you will find nothing in the Firebird or IBPhoenix archive that
>>suggests that Firebird or IBPhoenix has the least problem with linking
>>Firebird with anything or everything. The source of the restrictions,
>>prohibitions, and threats are solely from the "Free" Software Foundation.
>To the contrary, I do not even need to search:
>How about
>which in section 3.1 clearly states "You may not offer or impose any
>terms on any Source Code version that alters or restricts the
>applicable version of this License or the recipients' rights
That doesn't say anything at all about how the code can be used. It
does say that you can't add additional restrictions on how the code may
be used. This is a necessary element of "code once free stays free."

>Also, right in this thread someone posted this: "For the record,
>Netfrastructure code that 've donated to Firebird has a proviso that
>it can't be re-issued under other licenses" and then this: "I wish to
>exclude developers who wish to exclude developers".
>So, at least one developer clearly has some problems with linking
>Firebird code with GPLed code ;)
That was me. And I don't have any problems linking my public code with
anything at all. What it says is that if you wish to modify the code,
which is your right, it must be distributed under the same terms and
condition under which you received it. In specific, you can't throw a
GPL wrapper on it, even if you add code to the module. If you want to
use GPL and are willing to face the wrath of the "Free" Software
Foundation, you may put any original work you wish in a separate GPLed
module and modify my code to call it. The call is in code under IDPL,
but the called code can be GPLed or ever private.

>>To the best of my knowledge, the only reason that IPL/IDPL "violate" the
>>GPL is that they don't requirement software developers give away their
>>work for free if they don't wish to do so.
>This is only half the reason -- the other half is no-relicensing
>provision mentioned above.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]