[Xapian-discuss] licensing requirements for using the SWIG bindings

[Olly Betts]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 03:05:25PM +0100, Richard Boulton wrote:
> Victor Ng wrote:
> >I'm confused about my licensing obligation with respect to the Xapian
> >SWIG bindings.
> >
> >I've got a python wrapper that sits above the standard Xapian
> >Python/SWIG bindings, and I wasn't sure if the *intent* of the Xapian
> >team is that my python wrapper - and any code that also uses my
> >wrapper also falls under GPLv2.

I'm not sure we have an intent here.  If we had a free choice of what
the Xapian licence was now, we wouldn't choose the GPL.  "Copyleft" has
its good points, but overall I think a more liberal licence would be a
better option.  But we have a significant amount of code which we aren't
likely to get the copyright holders to relicense.  Eventually this will
be replaced, and then we can have long threads arguing what licence to
change to!

> My personal view is that a python wrapper around the Xapian python 
> bindings must be licensed under terms compatible with the GPL, or a 
> license which puts no additional restrictions in place (and, of course, 
> the conditions of the GPL will apply to your python code).

I would tend to take the same view - it's certainly less legally risky.

> >Is it (reasonably) safe to assume that the library will *not* get
> >upgraded to GPLv3 since copyright for various pieces belong to many
> >parties?
> 
> I believe the files are licensed under the GPLv2 with an option to use 
> any later version

I believe so too.  A few files are under less restrictive but compatible
licences (e.g. new BSD and LGPL).

> so the project may be able to change to GPLv3 in future.

It seems we have the option to modify and redistribute it under "any
later version", but I don't see the benefit of doing so.

I think we are agreed that we'd like a less restrictive licence -
currently users can choose to use the software under GPLv2 or GPLv3
so if we forced GPLv3 that would be more restrictive.

Cheers,
    Olly