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

[Victor Ng]

Thanks everyone.  I've just made the license GPL2.

If anyone is interested, the code is available on Google @

http://code.google.com/p/mbxap/

It's not complete yet, but it's almost complete.

*sigh*

I need someone to invent a 30 hour day.  :)

vic

On 9/3/07, Olly Betts <olly at survex.com> wrote:
> 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
>


-- 
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by
stupidity."  - Hanlon's Razor