-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 27
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Licensing terms clarification for end user (developer) applications #534
Comments
Hello @bogen85, I am not really sure what happen in case you link something non-GPL with GPL. I think GPL has an exception for allowing it without making the non-GPL program to become GPL. Let me double check that. |
I asked a few people about this and it seems GPL does force the non-GPL to become GPL in that case. I think the only way could be to change Toro's license. |
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL_linking_exception LGPL allows for dynamic linking, but applications using a unikernel are statically linked with it, as a unikernal is an application and library OS aggregate. So the Torokernel could stay GPL, but to allow non-GPL applications to stay non-GPL, an explicit linking exception would be needed. |
You are right, thank for the clarification. Does it mean that adding the following statement to COPYING would be enough?
|
The classpath exception is an example, it likely does not fit the use case for torokernel exactly. It does not have to worded exactly the same as it is your exception to the license. An application using torokernel uses FPC to combine torokernel sources and the application sources into a single kernel image bootable by qemu/kvm. Applying a torokernel license exception to the GPL might make more sense if the torokernel license is LGPL, not GPL. While GPL can be used for libraries, using it make might make an exception like this a bit more difficult to word. What is requirement is trying to undone is this one: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL
So an exception maybe could be worded something to the effect as follows:
Allowing end users to distribute to others without requiring their software to be GPL'ed would be the only That would certainly undo the linking with GPL restrictions noted in the FAQ, but it might makes sine of Basically what you be saying is:
If that is what you want to say, I'm not sure the best way to word your exception. What I provided above was an attempt that could maybe be worded a bit better. |
Something like this: https://spdx.org/licenses/Qt-GPL-exception-1.0.html
But reworded to fit torokernel. |
I think I could add something like:
And then, to add the following exception to the license:
I got inspired from https://av.jpn.support.panasonic.com/support/share2/eww/en/audio/rbm700b_500b_300b/LicenseNotice.pdf |
@bogen85 if you have a project that requires some help, do not hesitate to let me now. |
Since this unikernel is GPL, what does not mean for applications written to use it? Are not the end user (developer) applications linked directly to the unikernel, causing them to fall under the same licensing terms?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: