[xmlsec] FAQ 1.3

Aleksey Sanin aleksey at aleksey.com
Sun Aug 24 16:12:29 PDT 2003

> The nss library is under MPL/GPL dual-license.  This is the only way 
> it can be GPL compatible, as the MPL is not compatible.

Yes, you are right. Fixed!

> Technically, for GnuTLS + proprietary or otherwise GPL-incompatible 
> code, there is no problem (the GPL does not come into effect) if the 
> program is not distributed.  For example, this covers in-house tools, 
> tinkering, etc.  See the GPL FAQ.
> I would change that entry to "Yes, but only if the program is not 
> distributed."

How about that: "Yes, but if the application is distributed then the  
source code must be also released under GPL." ?

> I would also change the heading "Using with proprietary 
> applications/libraries" to "Using with proprietary or otherwise 
> GPL-incompatible applications/libraries".  Certainly a license can be 
> nonproprietary but still not GPL-compatible (MPL, Artistic, etc.).

I don't think I want to go that way :) There are too many different 
licenses and covering all possible
combinations is impossible (for example, I would imagine that there is a 
GPL incompatible license
that prevents *any* linking with GPL :) ). I feel that it is important 
to cover the 3 major (IMHO) cases:
proprietary code, MIT/BSD and GPL (I've added MIT/BSD column with all 
"Yes"). I am afraid that
even this information (especially in the part that talks about GPL) 
might be incorrect. I am not a lawyer
and I suspect that I just can't read the licenses text because it's 
written in not very well known to me
"lawyer's English" :)



More information about the xmlsec mailing list