[OPEN-ILS-DEV] NCIP

[Mike Rylander]

On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:17 PM, Scott McKellar <mck9 at swbell.net> wrote:
> Concerning compatility with the GNU GPL,see the following, referring
> to the X11 License:
>
> <FSF>
>    This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license,
> compatible with the GNU GPL. Older versions of XFree86 used the same
> license, and some of the current variants of XFree86 also do. Later
> versions of XFree86 are distributed under the XFree86 1.1 license.
>
>    This license is sometimes called the MIT license, but that term is
> misleading, since MIT has used many licenses for software.
> </FSF>
>
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
>
> So the FSF considers the X11 License GPL-compatible, and notes that
> it is sometimes referred to as the MIT License, with some ambiguity.
>
> The page above links to another page with the text of the X11 License.
> The XC page links to the text of what they call the MIT License.  I
> compared the text of the two licenses and found them to be identical,
> with the following exceptions:
>
> 1. In the standard boilerplate disclaimer of warranty, the X11 license
> refers specifically to "THE X CONSORTIUM" where the MIT License refers
> more generically to "THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS".
>
> 2. The X11 license includes the following additional language:
>
> <legalese>
> Except as contained in this notice, the name of the X Consortium shall
> not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or
> other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization
> from the X Consortium.
> </legalese>

That's the "advertising restriction" clause that some GPL purists have
objected to (because it adds a restriction to the GPL).  Lacking that
is actually better, in terms of GPL compatibility.

>
> I would assume that, since the MIT License does not include that
> verbiage, it is if anything less restrictive than the X11 license,
> and is therefore equally compatible with the GPL.
>
> Standard disclaimers apply: I am not a lawyer, and the foregoing should
> not be construed as legal advice.
>

ditto

> Scott McKellar
>
> --- On Tue, 1/19/10, David Fiander <david at fiander.info> wrote:
>
>> From: David Fiander <david at fiander.info>
>> Subject: Re: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] NCIP
>> To: "Evergreen Development Discussion List" <open-ils-dev at list.georgialibraries.org>
>> Date: Tuesday, January 19, 2010, 10:43 AM
>> Eric,
>>
>> Thanks for pointing that out. That code is under an MIT
>> source
>> license, so somebody will have to figure out if that's
>> compatible with
>> the GNU license, and if we can adopt it.
>>
>> - David
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:37, Eric Lease Morgan
>> <eric_morgan at infomotions.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> From: "Grant Johnson" <fgjohnson at upei.ca>
>> >> Subject: [OPEN-ILS-DEV] NCIP
>> >>
>> >> Anyone working on connectivity to evergreen item
>> status via the NCIP
>> >> protocol?
>> >
>> >
>> > The folks at the eXtensible Catalog (XC) may have
>> something to offer:
>> >
>> >  http://code.google.com/p/xcnciptoolkit/
>> >
>> > --
>> > Eric Lease Morgan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>



-- 
Mike Rylander
 | VP, Research and Design
 | Equinox Software, Inc. / The Evergreen Experts
 | phone:  1-877-OPEN-ILS (673-6457)
 | email:  miker at esilibrary.com
 | web:  http://www.esilibrary.com