On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 06:21:19 +1300, Helen Borrie <helebor@...>
wrote:

>>I disagree: the IPL and IDPL licenses gives every user the right to
>>sublicense the work, so they can make a pretty certificate to go with

the

>>license terms if they want to.
>
> Whether you agree or disagree, the IPL and IDPL licences refer to the
> right to copy the source code, not the right to deploy binaries. It is

not

> because of the licences that people get Firebird free of payment.

IDPL article 3.6 allows you to distribute an executable based on the code
covered by the license. As far as I can see there is no separate license
provision for the Firebird executables, which to me means that the
executables are also covered by the IPL/IDPL!

But even if that is not the case: as far as I am aware the buildfiles
themselves are also released under IDPL, making it trivial to create an
executable based on the covered code. And based on 3.6 I am allowed to
distribute that executable on my own license terms (as long as those terms
do not conflict with the IDPL, and as long as the sourcecode is still
provided under the IDPL).

BTW: Shouldn't the Firebird installer display the IDPL, it is currently
(2.5.1) displaying the IPL.

Mark