[License-discuss] GPL and non-GPL binaries in one distribution
mike.steglich at th-wildau.de
Fri Jan 13 13:54:08 UTC 2012
I really appreciate the comments and suggestions I got in this mailing list.
I understand that the issue depends on the definition of an derivative work. It seems if the combination of a GPL-licensed and an EPL-licensed software in a distribution is permitted if the combination is not a derivative work but a separate work.
Our GPLv3-licensed software is a mathematical programming language (CMPL) that generates a instance file of an linear program. After the generation of the instance file an EPL-licensed solver is executed directly using the command line interface. If there is an optimal solution our software reads a ASCII file that contains the solution.
I interpret the licenses and your comments in the way that in this case there is no license violation if I bundle both binaries in one distribution.
Am 12.01.2012 um 19:02 schrieb Mike Milinkovich:
> The answer, as always, is "it depends". Have you read  and ? They capture the basic positions of both the FSF and the Eclipse Foundation. However, they do focus primarily on the plug-in scenario.
>  http://mmilinkov.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/epl-gpl-commentary/
>  http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/using-the-gpl-for-eclipse-plug-ins
> From: license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org [mailto:license-discuss-bounces at opensource.org] On Behalf Of Mike Steglich
> Sent: January-12-12 10:59 AM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: [License-discuss] GPL and non-GPL binaries in one distribution
> Is it permitted to have a program licensed under GPLv3 and an EPL software in one binary distribution? There is no share of source code ore use of a library. The GPL binary executes the EPL binary as an external process (as a command line tool).
> I interpret that as an aggregate:
> A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.
> Am I right or not?
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss