[REBOL] Re: Script Library Licenses
From: brian:hawley at: 18-Aug-2004 15:56
Whoops, I forgot...
At 02:29 PM 8/18/04 -0500, I wrote:
>At 02:17 AM 8/17/04 -0400, Sunanda wrote:
> >So if anyone can help with expanding the license descriptions and other
> >details, please let me know.
>I think you should include a definition of concepts used in the
>licenses that may not have an obvious analog in the REBOL world.
>Here's my first stab at it - comment as you will.
Some clarifications relative to other REBOL circumstances:
Rugby: Loading the client into your script is linking the
client, integrating your script with the Rugby server is
linking with the server, but using a Rugby service from a
Rugby client is calling, not linking - separate address
spaces (processes, whatever). This means that you can call
a GPL'ed server from a proprietary client and vice versa.
This is similar to a web browser/server.
GPL linking exceptions: You can link GPL'ed code with
proprietary code if the proprietary code is considered
part of the development tool or standard runtime env.
This means it is OK to load/library a DLL installed
with Windows, but not a third-party proprietary DLL,
including any you write yourself.
This should also mean that you can use the standard
REBOL script library that comes with the SDK, but I
would like some clarification from REBOL Tech to be
sure. AFAIK, it is considered politically incorrect
to use proprietary development tools to build GPL
programs, but not illegal.
You should be sure to include the source to any changes
you make to the SDK scripts so that others with a stock
SDK can build your program. You will probably need to
distribute these changes as patches to comply with SDK
licensing rules, and will need to provide REBOL Tech.
with these patches as per the license rules. The SDK
scripts are shared-source, not open-source. SDK patches
probably can't be GPL'ed, unless you prohibit them from
being applied or add an exception to allow that, and
only link with code with a similar exception. Actually,
it would be a good idea with GPL code that depends on
the SDK to explicitly include an exception to allow
linking with SDK code, but be careful because that code
won't be license-compatible with GPL code without any
such exception. You may be able to use BSD or similar
GPL-compatible non-copyleft licenses for your patches
instead, or public domain.
This all probably needs some clarification from REBOL