[GRASS-PSC] Re: [GRASS-dev] is this license GPL2 compatible?

[Glynn Clements]

Hamish wrote:

> [sorry for the cross-posting, I'm casting the idea net wide]
> 
> is this license GPL2 compatible?

IMHO, no.

> is this license DFSG compatible? *

No idea.

> "There is no warranty whatsoever.  Use at your own risk. 
> 
> This code may be freely redistributed under the condition that the copyright 
> notices are not removed. You may distribute modified versions of this code 
> UNDER THE CONDITION THAT THIS CODE AND ANY MODIFICATIONS MADE TO IT IN THE 
> SAME FILE REMAIN UNDER COPYRIGHT OF FOOCORP, BOTH SOURCE AND OBJECT CODE ARE 
> MADE FREELY AVAILABLE WITHOUT CHARGE, AND CLEAR NOTICE IS GIVEN OF THE 
> MODIFICATIONS."

> the bit I am concerned about is the effect of "all your modifications are
> copyright us". (which is fine with me, but is it fine with the GPL?)

I can't see how it can be.

The GPL requires that all derivative works are licensed under the GPL. 
A licence is only "compatible" with the GPL if any terms and
conditions which it imposes are a subset of those imposed by the GPL,
so that, by complying with the GPL, you automatically comply with all
of the terms of the original licence.

Of course, you're free to do whatever you wish with code which you
write yourself. However, note that they aren't just asking for a
licence to your code, but transfer of the copyright. You couldn't
subsequently grant anyone else a licence to that code, as you no
longer own it.

GPL compatibility doesn't matter when it comes to your own code. It
matters if you want to merge the code with someone else's GPL'd code,
in which case you're in no position to transfer ownership of that
code, or even re-license it under terms other than the GPL.

Also, as Paul points out, the "without charge" is problematic.

-- 
Glynn Clements <glynn at gclements.plus.com>