View Single Post
Old 2011-10-04, 17:27   #4
Mr. P-1
 
Mr. P-1's Avatar
 
Jun 2003

7·167 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WraithX View Post
So, does anyone here know about licensing issues or does anyone here know somebody off-forum that knows about licensing issues? The facts so far are that the maintainers of both packages (GMP-ECM and GWNUM) have each given permission for this combined binary to be hosted here on the mersenneforum.[

Does anyone know if this is enough? Maybe we can find documentation in the GPL or LGPL licenses that references situations like these? Can anybody think of other requirements that should be met before hosting this kind of binary?
Package Maintainers do not have the power ex officio to abrogate the licencing conditions on the packages they maintain. That right belongs to the copyright holders.

In this case, the package maintainers are (substantially or entirely) the copyright holders. If all the copyright holders give permission for the combined binary to be hosted on mersenneforum, then it may be so hosted. It would help, however, if the copyright holders could clarify a couple of matters.

1. Will the complete source used to build the combined binaries be made available?

2. Under what conditions (if any) may recipients of the binaries (and/or source if available) redistribute them?

One possible answer to 2 is "GPL with an additional restriction". This would work, (at the cost of rendering the source in this "fork" of GMP-ECM incompatible with ordinary GPL). There is however one potential trap that George should be aware of. If the distribution terms allow "GPL" to be GPLv3 (Either by specifying GPLv3 explicitly, some earlier version "or any later", or by failing to specify the version at all), then any recipient may, under the terms of GPLv3 remove the restriction, and distribute under the unrestricted terms of GPLv3.
Mr. P-1 is offline   Reply With Quote