[lltx] otfload licences

Will Robertson wspr81 at gmail.com
Thu May 20 09:09:28 CEST 2010


I already commented briefly on GitHub, but before we continue this discussion we need to clear some things up:

1.  We have code from ConTeXt which is in the GPL (v2, apparently)

2.  Any derived work from that code must also be in the GPL.

3.  Are we allowed to distribute luaotfload under CC0 with the ConTeXt files under GPL? I didn't think so:

"If you modify your copy or copies of the program or any portion of it, or develop a program based upon it, you may distribute the resulting work provided you do so under the GNU General Public License."

4.  Do we *want* to have this weird double-licencing? If so, why?

My suggestion is to have the whole bundle under a single licence. And because the ConTeXt code is already GPL, so should all the rest.

* * *

> The paragraph
> [snip]
> doesn't to me...

I originally interpreted that to mean anyone else writing ConTeXt modules, but on second read it's more ambiguous than that. I'm going to take the conservative approach and ignore that paragraph from now on. ("For practical purposes" doesn't sound very legally sound, to me.)

> And also, I see no mention of "GPLv2 or later", so we cannot distribute the code under GPLv3, and we cannot distribute GPLv3 code under GPLv2, so the only solution is to put the code under GPLv2 or CC0 (which allows redistribution under GPLv2).

I missed the fact that it was v2 of the GPL, not v3. That was a mistake on my part.

* * *

>> Okay, then the rest of the package should be changed to the GPL as well.
> Do you mean the rest of the code? I don't think so, you can distribute CC0 code under GPL, CC0 allows it.

But we're in the reverse situation: you can't distribute GPL code under the CC0 licence.

-- Will

More information about the lualatex-dev mailing list