Siebrand Mazeland wrote:
Occasionally I visit
Ohloh.net to satisfy my stats
addiction.
One of the things Ohloh analyses in the source code is license
information[1]. On the Ohloh MediaWiki page[2] an analysis summary is
displayed. It contains the following warnings (number of files added by me
from [1]):
# Mozilla Public License 1.0 may conflict with GPL (253 files)
# PHP License may conflict with GPL (7 files)
# Apache Software License may conflict with GPL (1 file)
# Artistic License may conflict with GPL (7 files)
# Common Development and Distribution License may conflict with GPL (1 file)
# Apache License 2.0 may conflict with GPL (7 files)
I am wondering if any of these warnings can really point out a licensing
issue. If they do, I think we need to persue this, and get it sorted out.
Anyone who can shed some light on this?
The GPL restriction on linking with non-GPL code is irrelevant for a
non-compiled language, when all we're distributing is the source code.
I could find nothing in the GPL that contradicts this interpretation.
Even for mixed-license projects written in C, it's legal to distribute
the source code, just not the compiled binaries.
-- Tim Starling